Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> skribis: > On 10/16/2013 02:08 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Mats Erik Andersson <g...@gisladisker.se> skribis: >> >>> I would like to see the module readline to access also libedit, >>> should libreadline be missing on a particular system. The patch >>> contained here successfully links against libedit on NetBSD and >>> Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. Likewise, it still behaves correctly with >>> libreadline on GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, DragonFlyBSD, OpenBSD, and >>> OpenSolaris. >> >> Isn’t libedit supposed to be a clone of Readline just for the sake of >> avoiding the GPL? >> >> Why not let its maintainers fix it, if they really want it to behave >> like a drop-in replacement? > > libedit does NOT support history; as such, it is only a drop-in > replacement for a subset of the full power of GNU readline. It may > indeed be an appropriate use for gnulib's readline module (which > fortunately only guarantees a subset of libreadline that happens to be > met by libedit), but I'm not sure if we would be setting a poor > precedent by making it easier to shift away from GPL over to BSD > licensing, as the BSD license does not guarantee the same set of freedoms.
Indeed. [...] > Oh, and while on the topic of license interactions: gnutls recently > started linking against nettle, but nettle links against gmp which is > now LGPLv3+; thus, even though the code base of gnutls still claims to > use LGPLv2+, gnutls can no longer be linked into programs that are > [L]GPLv2-only, at least not without forking a version of gmp from its > LGPLv2+ days. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986347 Not to mention the use of v3+ Gnulib modules: <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.gnutls.devel/6869>. Ludo’.
