Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Stephen Frost wrote:
> > -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > > * Greg Stark (gsstark@mit.edu) wrote:
> > > > Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
> > > > philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
> > > > acceptable so things like EDB's products, or Greenplums, or for that
> > > > matter Pokertracker's all include other proprietary source that of
> > > > course has restrictive licenses ("OpenSSL-type-licensed" except even
> > > > *more* restrictive).
> > >
> > > This is a bit backwards, I think.. What you're suggesting is that, some
> > > day, we might want community/BSD-licensed PG to link against
> > > commercially licensed products from EDB for basic functionality (eg:
> > > encryption)?
> > >
> > > I agree that we want to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible,
> > > our dependence on GPL or OpenSSL-type-licensed libraries. It's
> > > unfortunate that there isn't a good non-GPL option for libreadline, but
> > > I'm not sure what EDB or anyone else would expect the PG community to
> > > do regarding that. Should PG remove support for libreadline? Should
> > > the PG community make libedit a good BSD-licensed alternative to
> > > libreadline? Neither of those really make sense to me.
> >
> > What are our click-installers doing now?
>
> Probably readline but does it matter? We distribute the source to the
> click installers.
Well, there is what the community is risking, and there is what the
packagers are risking. Ideally we would make the job easier for the
packagers too, though we don't have to.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +