Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> I find it hard to get excited about working to replace the software that
>> has a reasonable license here (readline) rather than trying to eliminate
>> dependence on the one with an unreasonable license (OpenSSL).
>
> Hm?
>
> The trouble with readline is that it's GPL, not LGPL, and the former is
> actually *not* a reasonable license for a library.  At least not for one
> that isn't trying to be viral.  There's room for argument about whether
> dynamic linking exempts applications from the scope of the license, but
> in the end it would be cleanest from a licensing standpoint if we
> weren't using readline.

Using libedit would fix the problem for 'psql', but ...

> The OpenSSL license is BSD-with-advertising,
> which is obnoxious in some respects but it isn't trying to force other
> people to change the license on their code.

... you are forgetting all the GPL apps that link with libpq.

They either need to use non-SSL libpq or add OpenSSL exception
to their license (to have 100% feel-good licensing).

Just pointing out that OpenSSL does not smell like roses...

--
marko