On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 08:17:58AM +0200, Carsten Schoenert wrote: > I don't know if something has changed here, I only know the current > cirumstances and there I don't see reasons not to use readline.
Hi Carsten, thank you for your email. I am not a lawyer, so I'm probably getting it wrong. My data points are - "This is in contrast to a developer choosing to use a GPL licensed library to create a new application, in which case the *entire* combined resulting application is required to be licensed under the GPL when distributed, to comply with section 5 of the GPL." [1] - "The software modules that link with the library may be under various GPL compatible licenses, but the work as a whole must be licensed under the GPL." [2] - "Files: * Copyright: various people License: BSD-3-clause" [3] I understand that ngspice is now DFSG free. I cannot however see whether or not the "work as a whole" (which is probably the package you uploaded?) is licensed under the GPL. I don't know whether this is possible or whether it makes any difference. Maybe it's trivial (today), but it appears to be a necessity. (It reminds me of gnutls vs openssl, both DFSG (iirc?), but still a can of worms. That one seemed to have been the other way round, though.) > BTW: Any reason why this thing comes now to topic and not after this bug > report was created? No. But the issue was mentioned in the original bug report. thanks felix [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Readline#Implications_of_GNU_Readline's_GPL_license [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL [3] d/copyright
