Horton

Thread

  1. Readline use in trouble?

    Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> — 1999-10-19T13:41:49Z

    Here is something I read as part of the Alladin Ghostscript 6.0 beta
release.  I must admit I don't understand the logic of the issue.  It
seems the issue is that you can link non-GPL to GPL libraries, but you
can't distribute the result.   Maybe it doesn't apply to us because we
don't copyright our code.

It seems to suggest that we could be prevented from distributing
readline in the future.  Not sure though.

It sounds like the old US crypto restriction where you couldn't
distribute software that had hooks in it to add crypto.

Removal of readline would certainly affect psql users.

The actual file is gs5.94/doc/Make.htm.1

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

  2. Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

    Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1999-10-19T14:32:23Z

    > Removal of readline would certainly affect psql users.

afaik the Alladin product is not in the same licensing category as
Postgres (there are restrictions that, for example, prohibit RedHat
from distributing a recent version of gs with their package).

Not to worry...

                    - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

  3. Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

    Oleg Broytmann <phd@phd.russ.ru> — 1999-10-19T14:33:43Z

    Hello!

On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Here is something I read as part of the Alladin Ghostscript 6.0 beta
> release.  I must admit I don't understand the logic of the issue.  It
> seems the issue is that you can link non-GPL to GPL libraries, but you
> can't distribute the result.   Maybe it doesn't apply to us because we
> don't copyright our code.
> 
> It seems to suggest that we could be prevented from distributing
> readline in the future.  Not sure though.

   It is second or third time I see this, so I think I understand. This is
the way FSF protects GNU-licensed code - you can link with GNU code, but
you cannot distribute non-GNU code in binary form linked with GNU code.
   If you want to distribute non-GNU code in binary form only, either you
must NOT to link it with GNU code; or link it with GNU code and provide a
way to user to relink to other versions of GNU code; or just publish your
sources.
   The second way means - publish your *.o for all platforms. The way
number 3 means "give all users a way to compile and link it as they want,
with or without GNU code". I think this applied to PostgreSQL - we have
source code published, so I do not expect problems with readline.
   Binary-only programs are in GNUtroubles, really. Somewhere on
www.gnu.org I saw a story about a company that made a program, linked it
with libreadline and distributed it in binary-only form. FSF contacted the
company asked to remove libreadline. The company instead published the
whole sources. FSF considered it as a Big Win!
   BTW, readline is a special case here - it protected by GNU GPL, which is
very restrictive. Most free/opensource libs are protected with GNU LGPL,
which is less restrictive. GNU readline is the way FSF forces people to
publsih sources!

   Sorry, my English is far from perfect, if you do not understand my
explanations - we may raise a discussion here, and I'll try to find a
better words...

Oleg.
---- 
    Oleg Broytmann     http://members.xoom.com/phd2/     phd2@earthling.net
           Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.

  4. Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

    Jan Wieck <wieck@debis.com> — 1999-10-19T14:35:22Z

    Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Here is something I read as part of the Alladin Ghostscript 6.0 beta
> release.  I must admit I don't understand the logic of the issue.  It
> seems the issue is that you can link non-GPL to GPL libraries, but you
> can't distribute the result.   Maybe it doesn't apply to us because we
> don't copyright our code.
>
> It seems to suggest that we could be prevented from distributing
> readline in the future.  Not sure though.
>
> It sounds like the old US crypto restriction where you couldn't
> distribute software that had hooks in it to add crypto.
>
> Removal of readline would certainly affect psql users.

    Now  the  time  has come that the FSF has grown that big that
    they try to redefine the meaning of "Free". Next  they  claim
    "Free" is their trademark :-(

    I  think  readline  isn't  our biggest problem. What about if
    they notice that our parser can only be compiled  when  using
    bison,  and  that  we  ship the generated output for the case
    someone doesn't has bison installed?


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #

  5. Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

    Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1999-10-19T14:55:46Z

    >     I  think  readline  isn't  our biggest problem. What about if
>     they notice that our parser can only be compiled  when  using
>     bison,  and  that  we  ship the generated output for the case
>     someone doesn't has bison installed?

afaik this is explicitly covered as "conforming behavior" in the GNU
license for bison. It was not always so, but the license for bison was
recently updated to allow distributing generated code.

I should point out that rms himself is on speaking terms with us; he
recently referred someone here to ask about Postgres vis a vis Oracle
compatibility. I'm pretty sure we are one of "the good guys" in Open
Source. ;)

                    - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

  6. Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

    Oleg Broytmann <phd@phd.russ.ru> — 1999-10-19T14:56:42Z

    On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Jan Wieck wrote:
>     I  think  readline  isn't  our biggest problem. What about if
>     they notice that our parser can only be compiled  when  using
>     bison,  and  that  we  ship the generated output for the case
>     someone doesn't has bison installed?

   Until they make a significant change in their license we don't need to
worry. GPL specifically states that the RESULTS of GNU-protected programs
are not covered at all. These results can be used in any way you want,
including commercial ways. Only program's code matter.

Oleg.
---- 
    Oleg Broytmann     http://members.xoom.com/phd2/     phd2@earthling.net
           Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.

  7. Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

    Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@csd.uu.se> — 1999-10-19T16:24:24Z

    >From GPL, section 0:

"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope." 

We are not copying, distributing, or modifying readline.

"The act of running the Program is not restricted, ..."

Writing
char * foo = readline("");
is the same as writing
int bar = system("/bin/gzip");
just that they chose to create their product in a way that you have to use
the former method rather than the latter.

"... and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents
constitute a work based on the Program" 

I always thunk that the output of readline is a work based on the user.

Anyway, when the BSD folks get their libedit act together, we can easily
replace one with the other. That was one of the requests by the folks out
there, and I got it done.

	-Peter



On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Here is something I read as part of the Alladin Ghostscript 6.0 beta
> release.  I must admit I don't understand the logic of the issue.  It
> seems the issue is that you can link non-GPL to GPL libraries, but you
> can't distribute the result.   Maybe it doesn't apply to us because we
> don't copyright our code.
> 
> It seems to suggest that we could be prevented from distributing
> readline in the future.  Not sure though.
> 
> It sounds like the old US crypto restriction where you couldn't
> distribute software that had hooks in it to add crypto.
> 
> Removal of readline would certainly affect psql users.


-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden

  8. Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

    Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> — 1999-10-19T21:32:36Z

    > > Removal of readline would certainly affect psql users.
> 
>     Now  the  time  has come that the FSF has grown that big that
>     they try to redefine the meaning of "Free". Next  they  claim
>     "Free" is their trademark :-(
> 
>     I  think  readline  isn't  our biggest problem. What about if
>     they notice that our parser can only be compiled  when  using
>     bison,  and  that  we  ship the generated output for the case
>     someone doesn't has bison installed?
> 

I always thought that was OK because we distribute full source code,
right?



-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

  9. Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

    Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> — 1999-10-19T21:39:54Z

    > >     I  think  readline  isn't  our biggest problem. What about if
> >     they notice that our parser can only be compiled  when  using
> >     bison,  and  that  we  ship the generated output for the case
> >     someone doesn't has bison installed?
> 
> afaik this is explicitly covered as "conforming behavior" in the GNU
> license for bison. It was not always so, but the license for bison was
> recently updated to allow distributing generated code.
> 
> I should point out that rms himself is on speaking terms with us; he
> recently referred someone here to ask about Postgres vis a vis Oracle
> compatibility. I'm pretty sure we are one of "the good guys" in Open
> Source. ;)

Wait until you read my preface.  It makes us sound like heros.  Maybe we
are.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

  10. Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

    Matthew N. Dodd <winter@jurai.net> — 1999-10-22T07:12:11Z

    On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Removal of readline would certainly affect psql users.
> 
> The actual file is gs5.94/doc/Make.htm.1

One could always switch to libedit, which is BSD licensed.  Its not yet
ported to as many platforms as readline though...

-- 
| Matthew N. Dodd  | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD  |
| winter@jurai.net |       2 x '84 Volvo 245DL        | ix86,sparc,pmax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent  | ISO8802.5 4ever |