On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:19:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > When we build psql with readline, which is our default on many > > platforms, we are already be GPL'ing psql, at least according to the > > copyright holders, FSF.
> When we link to a readline library that is normally present on the > target system, we do not become covered by the GPL, because of this > exception. But shipping readline in our package would be a flat > violation of the GPL unless we are willing to relicense. Umm, whatever happens, the licence on psql doesn't change. If we link compile and link psql with readline and distribute the result, all that means is that the combined work must be distributed under terms compliant with the GPL (eg source availability, etc). The code doesn't "become" GPL'd. The licence on psql remains unchanged and if someone took the result and deleted all the GPL stuff, the result would still be licenced as BSD. Only the copyright holder can change the licence of code. All the GPL does in a combined work is require that any parts have the at least the same freedoms as required by the GPL. Since BSD is compatable with (ie more free than) the GPL, it's all ok, but at no point is any licence changed. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
