On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
