Wayne Meissner wrote:
2009/2/18 Conrad Meyer <[email protected]>:
I was under the impression that non-GPL code could not link statically or
dynamically with GPL libraries, and that this was one of the major differences
between the GPL and LGPL. This is certainly Stallman's opinion (he cites
That correct, with a small wrinkle. Where there is an ABI compatible
library, which can be used as a complete replacement, and the binary
is dynamically linked, then it could be argued that the code is
intended to link with the ABI compatible library, and not the GPLed
variant.
Given that libeditline is BSD licenced, and provides the same api as
libreadline (indeed, on MacOS, it _is_ liibreadline), then the GPL
would not apply - at least as far as using readline via FFI.
Actually, I was confused a bit here...Wayne meant that on OS X
libreadline is actually libedit, so my point about Apple shipping GPL
stuff doesn't apply. But that does help seal the deal for readline at
least; they ship something that looks like it and tastes like it, and
they're comfortable linking "libreadline" to it, so we should be cool.
After all, we're just loading "the library that on a given system goes
by the name of 'libreadline'" and hooking it up.
- Charlie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
