Re: GNU readline and BSD license

* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [001229 15:43] wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> > How different is the feature set?
>
> I was going to ask the same thing. If it's an exact replacement then
> OK, but I do not want to put up with non-Emacs-compatible keybindings,
> to mention just one likely issue.
>
> The whole thing really strikes me as make-work anyway. Linux is GPL'd;
> does anyone want to argue that we shouldn't run on Linux? Since we
> are not including libreadline in our distribution, there is NO reason
> to worry about using it when it's available. Wanting to find a
> replacement purely because of the license amounts to license bigotry,
> IMHO.

Rasmus Lerdorf warned one of you guys that simply linking to GNU
readline can contaminate code with the GPL.

Readline isn't LGPL which permits linking without lincense issues,
it is GPL which means that if you link to it, you must be GPL as
well.

--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."