according to http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options-systemrequirements : > System Requirements > > If a PMC wishes to build a product that takes a core dependency on some > third-party work that is only available under an excluded license, the PMC > might consider whether the work can be used as a system requirement, rather > than an internal part of the product. The drawback to this approach is that > every new system requirement narrows the potential user base for the product. > Each PMC is solely responsible for choosing an appropriate set of system > requirements for its products; however, the following guidelines are > recommended: > > • Clearly label each product's system requirements and their licenses > on the main product page. > • Consider the project's implicit/explicit charter and intention of the > board resolution that created the project when determining how the system > requirements will affect the users. > • Provide a means, when practical, for users to substitute an > alternative implementation for system requirements only available under > excluded licenses (especially non-OSD licenses).
I’d prefer to not link GPLed library if we have another alternate replacement, we have seen many works on OpenOffice.org for GPLed library replacement. I think it is safe to replace readline because the other two replacement is very often used too, that will make much dependency issue for our users. Yongming Zhao 赵永明 aka 永豪 yong...@taobao.com 在 2014年1月7日，上午9:17，Ben <b...@meh.net.nz> 写道： > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 10:28:08AM -0800, James Peach wrote: > >> I'm not very comfortable with this change. I don't think it fixes anything >> and I don't think that we have a good idea on how this affects distributions >> and end users. I'm perfectly happy with preferring libedit to libreadline, >> but I'd like some more information about the impact of removing libreadline. > > To my mind if it breaks at compile time it's better than ending up with a > binary that has incompatible licenses such as libssl and libreadline. > > I don't know what's common for checking that licenses are kept in check. But > it's a problem faced by quite a lot of software. > > An example of which is: > > http://lwn.net/Articles/428111/ > > With PostgreSQL also linking against readline and openssl in violation. > > I must admit i don't understand all the complications, but to my mind the > less dangerous path is to just not link against GPL libraries for non GPL > software, and not take unnecessary risks when libedit can acheive the desired > functionality. > > That said libedit may not be supported everywhere. But if support is not > found the code already supports just not supporting advanced line editing > / history capabilities, which can be reenabled by adding libedit/libeditline. > > Ben.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
