W liście z śro, 07-08-2002, godz. 10:58, Mark O'Donohue pisze: > Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: > >A friend of mine reminded me lately, that libreadline is GPL not LGPL > >library so it can only be used in GPL-compatible software. > >However AFAIK GPL is incompatible with MPL type licenses like IPL > Sure sounds a good idea to get it checked out, I know that it's a > debatable topic on readline, particularly since it's in a shared > library, and we don't redistribute readline with our binaries, since > it's already included in linux. > > Now - I've had a bit of a further read, and from what I've read, it's > probably ok for me to build and to distribute my stuff, since I don't > distribute readline as well, but apparently the debate seems to be if > there is a conflict for debian to ship both readline and firebird together. I am afraid you're violating GPL this way. It doesn't matter if you distribute this lib or not. The fact is that you use lib's headers and use lib itself (while compiling and then linking the program). You could say so if you could compile FireBird having NO libreadline on disk (for ex. with some stub lib only and own headers). But you can't (ATM). Even then (if you could) - the user using such FireBird would be violating GPL, as he would effectively link GPL-incompatible program to GPLed library (he won't be able and/or will not want to use empty, stub lib). To call it simple - that way or another - it's illegal. Maybe FSF would not sue you (however I would not be so sure ;-) nor the user, but this is ethicaly wrong. > A legal opinion sounds good (Im glad there's someone to provide one). IANAL (that's why I am Cc:ing d-l in case I were wrong somewhere) > >I'd suggest using editline as a replacement, which is available > >under BSD-type license. > Basically I'm happy to swap to editline. That's all what's needed. Thank you for your understanding Best regards Grzegorz B. Prokopski
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature