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.
> > If you have libreadline installed, why would you want libeditline
> > installed to?
> 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.
> 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
There are 2 solutions I have seen so far:
1. link programs with libreadline instead of libeditline.
* pros: can install both at same time
* cons: cant substitute one for the other without rebuilding.
1. libreadline and libeditline both install libreadline.so.*
* pros: no source code changes.
* pros: can substitute on for the other at installation time.
* cons: can't install both at the same time.
(sorry about the broken numbering)
Maybe we can somehow merge these two solutions?
Brian May <email@example.com>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com