| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adam Haberlach <adam(at)newsnipple(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GNU readline and BSD license |
| Date: | 2000-12-30 01:46:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20320.978140800@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Adam Haberlach <adam(at)newsnipple(dot)com> writes:
> RMS already made a big stink about this, claiming that BeOS's use
> of an emulation layer to link to some GPL'ed network drivers was enough
> to force the GPL'ing of the kernel.
Did BeOS make distributions that included the GPL'd code?
Was the GPL'd code essential for useful use of their system?
We can answer "no" to both of those points for Postgres vs. readline,
so the Be case doesn't look like precedent to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-30 01:48:36 | Re: GNU readline and BSD license |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-30 01:42:34 | Re: GNU readline and BSD license |