> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sunday 01 January 2006 18:51, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> This has been debated ad nauseam in the past. The consensus, bar a > >> few people with more advanced paranoia than I suffer from, > is that we > >> can ;-) > > > I don't think it is good practice to ship packaged software that is > > statically linked to a gpl library and then claim that your > package is bsd licensed. > > Robert is 100% right. If the Readline people wanted non-GPL > packages linking to their code, they'd have used LGPL not > GPL. We must not ignore their clear intentions; to do so is > certainly unethical and probably illegal.
Does it make a difference if we ship it dynamically linked against a DLL? Because we can do that pretty easily. > Anyone for trying to port BSD libedit to work on Windows? I googled a bit on that as well, and turns out that somebody did try it, and it wasn't easy. And from what I can tell, not complete yet. http://www.coldie.net/node/131 I'm sure it *can* be done, but it's probably quite a bit of work. > (Of course, you could also treat the Windows installer as > being entirely GPL-licensed, which would effectively comply > with both upstream licenses. But I don't find that an > appealing solution.) Me either. Though we do ship GPL stuff in it already - postgis to be specific. But we don't link against that, we just load the module at runtime... //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
