> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> ...
> > >Yes, that is probably it. The GPL doesn't give anything to
> > users, it takes some control away from users and gives it to
> > the author of the code.
>
> Correction - it takes away from the *distributor* of binaries
> the right to give users fewer rights than he has. If he doesn't
> distribute, he can do what he likes.
That is not totally true. While it prevents him from distributing code
with fewer rights than the GPL code he received, he loses distribution
rights on the code he writes as well. That is the _viral_ nature of the
GPL that MS was talking about.
I know it is not fun to hear these GPL issues, but it is a valid
concern.
> I'm sorry to be pedantic! We need to be clear about that because
> Microsoft are trying to spread FUD about it.
I was even more pedantic. :-)
> >From the project's point of view, it is probably a bad idea to accept code
> under any license other than BSD. That can only lead to confusion
> among users and distributors alike and may led to inadvertent
> violation of the GPL by those who don't notice that it is has
> been used.
Considering that we link the backend against libreadline if it exists
(even though it isn't needed by the backend), we already have quite a
bit of confusion. Only libedit can be used freely for line editing,
i.e. psql.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026