GPL, readline, and static/dynamic linking

Here is an article about GPL and GPL version 3.0.

http://icd.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&SubSection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=92350&VERSION_NUM=1

The interesting thing is that Stallman says:

"Our position is that it makes no difference whether programs are linked
statically or dynamically," explains Stallman. "Either one makes a
combined program.

This would seem to imply that our dynamic linking of libreadline in
PostgreSQL backend binaries makes the distribution of backend binaries
fall under the GPL. (Of course, we can use *BSD libedit now.)

Let me add I don't agree with this, and find the whole GPL
heavy-handedness very distasteful.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Here is an article about GPL and GPL version 3.0.
>
> http://icd.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&SubSection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=92350&VERSION_NUM=1
>
> The interesting thing is that Stallman says:
>
> "Our position is that it makes no difference whether programs are linked
> statically or dynamically," explains Stallman. "Either one makes a
> combined program.
>
> This would seem to imply that our dynamic linking of libreadline in
> PostgreSQL backend binaries makes the distribution of backend binaries
> fall under the GPL.

This was discussed extensively earlier. Linking dynamically or
statically doesn't make a difference in the case of a library, but as
long as readline is an optional feature for the user it's not a
problem.

--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.

Mensaje citado por: Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg(at)redhat(dot)com>:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > Here is an article about GPL and GPL version 3.0.
> >
> >
>
http://icd.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&SubSection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=92350&VERSION_NUM=1
> >
> > The interesting thing is that Stallman says:
> >
> > "Our position is that it makes no difference whether programs are
> linked
> > statically or dynamically," explains Stallman. "Either one makes a
> > combined program.
> >
> > This would seem to imply that our dynamic linking of libreadline in
> > PostgreSQL backend binaries makes the distribution of backend
> binaries
> > fall under the GPL.
>
> This was discussed extensively earlier. Linking dynamically or
> statically doesn't make a difference in the case of a library, but as
> long as readline is an optional feature for the user it's not a
> problem.

I agree with Trond on this. It's like the problem that PHP had with bc until it
got LGPLed. All they did was say you could compile PHP with it, but you had to
downloaded by ourself.

Saludos... :-)

System Administration: It's a dirty job,
but someone told I had to do it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués email: martin(at)math(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar
Santa Fe - Argentina http://math.unl.edu.ar/~martin/
Administrador de sistemas en math.unl.edu.ar
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:50:17AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Let me add I don't agree with this, and find the whole GPL
> heavy-handedness very distasteful.

Please, not this again. Is there a piss-and-moan-about-the-GPL
schedule posted somewhere?

Either PG is in compliance, or it's not. Only libreadline's copyright
holder has the right to complain if it's not. There is no need to
speculate; if we care about compliance, we need only ask the owner.
If the owner says we're violating his license, then we can comply, or
negotiate, or stop using the code. The GPL is no different from any
other license, that way.

Complaining about the terms on something you got for nothing has to be
the biggest waste of time and attention I've seen on this list.

Nathan Myers
ncm(at)zembu(dot)com

> > This was discussed extensively earlier. Linking dynamically or
> > statically doesn't make a difference in the case of a library, but as
> > long as readline is an optional feature for the user it's not a
> > problem.
>
> I agree with Trond on this. It's like the problem that PHP had with bc until it
> got LGPLed. All they did was say you could compile PHP with it, but you had to
> downloaded by ourself.

Yes, we don't distribute libreadline. We just check in 'configure' for
it.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mensaje citado por: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> > > This was discussed extensively earlier. Linking dynamically or
> > > statically doesn't make a difference in the case of a library, but
> as
> > > long as readline is an optional feature for the user it's not a
> > > problem.
> >
> > I agree with Trond on this. It's like the problem that PHP had with bc
> until it
> > got LGPLed. All they did was say you could compile PHP with it, but
> you had to
> > downloaded by ourself.
>
> Yes, we don't distribute libreadline. We just check in 'configure' for
> it.

In that case, I would say that there is nothing to discuss. RMS has nothing to
say about this.
The only problem would be if Postgres would be distributed with libreadline.

Saludos... :-)

System Administration: It's a dirty job,
but someone told I had to do it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués email: martin(at)math(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar
Santa Fe - Argentina http://math.unl.edu.ar/~martin/
Administrador de sistemas en math.unl.edu.ar
-----------------------------------------------------------------