"Marc G. Fournier" wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, scott.marlowe wrote: > > > > > If that is a real objective, I'm surprised. > > > > > > The base source tree has always been as BSD pure as we can make it ... its > > > never been kept a secret ... > > > > True. But not linking to LGPLd libs would be a bit extreme there. > > Correct, we've always had libreadline support, as a compile option, but > libreadline is not part of the distribution, only the hooks to it are ... > and, just recently, libedit(?) support was added as well, so that a > non-GPL licensed alternative is available for those wishing to distribute > the software ...
GPL vs. LGPL vs. BSD vs. MyFu**inLicense the next round ... man is this annoying. I think with this new incarnation of the License war it's a good time to give a real example what dragging our attention to licensing leads to. Libedit might not be as good ... so be it. Who cares about people who choose their database system by the color of the splash screen? We have a pure BSD alternative that we could even ship with our distro, time to retire the libreadline hooks. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
