Re: GNU readline and BSD license

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Peter Bierman wrote:

> At 7:15 PM -0500 12/29/00, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> writes:
> >> 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.
> >
> >I do not believe that. In fact, I'll go further and say "Horsepucky!"
> >The GPL applies to works that "contain or are derived from" a GPL'd
> >program. Linking to a separately distributed library does not cause
> >psql either to contain or to be derived from libreadline.
>
>
> Some very highly paid lawyers disagree with you.
>
> That doesn't make them right, but keep in mind that no one has defined "derivitive work" in a court of law. And RMS isn't a lawyer.
>
> I agree readline doesn't taint PG, but IMHO, the more distance between the GPL and PG, the better.
OK. For the last time, here's the story about linking, as agreed upon by
almost damn everyone:

a) dynamic linking is kosher, as of GPL2
b) static linking is OK, but you may NOT redistribute resulting libraries.

I hope the above will put the discussion about readline to an end, as
Postgres does not distribute statically linked binaries.

-alex