Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
G> On Sun, 2002-05-05 at 14:19, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Suppose the proposal is enacted. If it is, then I essentially *can't*
> > have libreadline on my system unless I refuse to have ssl-using
> > applications. (Given that having -dev libraries is important to me.)
> The GPL only applies when distributing packages, you can do what you
> like with your own system.
Except that the proposal would involve, essentially, a *conflict*
between libedit and libreadline. That certainly does affect me.
> > Perhaps I might maintain a package that uses (because of licensing
> > restrictions or other problems) libeditline.
> If the ABI is compatible, then this shouldn't be a problem.
As I pointed out, licensing issues may make it important to have both
libraries on a system. Some programs can only be linked against
libeditline, but I may prefer libreadline for non-API-related issues.
(Remember, these two libraries could have the same API and yet
importantly different user interfaces.) So I would want to use
libeditline when I must, and libreadline when I can.
> > Perhaps I want to make my entire system available as a place to get
> > the whole system from.
> Maybe it is a problem if you really want libreadline and also want to
> distribute it.
Yep. That's what I mean by "make my entire system available".
> 1. link programs with libreadline instead of libeditline.
> * pros: can install both at same time
> * cons: cant substitute one for the other without rebuilding.
I think you have this backwards, right? You mean "link programs with
libeditline instead of libreadline", right?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org