Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I find it hard to get excited about working to replace the software that
> has a reasonable license here (readline) rather than trying to eliminate
> dependence on the one with an unreasonable license (OpenSSL).
Hm?
The trouble with readline is that it's GPL, not LGPL, and the former is
actually *not* a reasonable license for a library. At least not for one
that isn't trying to be viral. There's room for argument about whether
dynamic linking exempts applications from the scope of the license, but
in the end it would be cleanest from a licensing standpoint if we
weren't using readline. The OpenSSL license is BSD-with-advertising,
which is obnoxious in some respects but it isn't trying to force other
people to change the license on their code.
In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
Whereas, if we get rid of readline, it no longer matters whether we
depend on OpenSSL.
regards, tom lane