Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> On Sunday 01 January 2006 18:51, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> This has been debated ad nauseam in the past. The consensus, bar a few
>> people with more advanced paranoia than I suffer from, is that we can ;-)
> I don't think it is good practice to ship packaged software that is statically
> linked to a gpl library and then claim that your package is bsd licensed.
Robert is 100% right. If the Readline people wanted non-GPL packages
linking to their code, they'd have used LGPL not GPL. We must not
ignore their clear intentions; to do so is certainly unethical and
probably illegal.
Anyone for trying to port BSD libedit to work on Windows?
(Of course, you could also treat the Windows installer as being entirely
GPL-licensed, which would effectively comply with both upstream
licenses. But I don't find that an appealing solution.)
regards, tom lane