
This discussion really scares me in two ways:
1. U of C licences aren't to be removed or extended (they are still a 
copyrighted part themselves)
2. GNU readline is a optional (though convenient) part of postgreSQL
(If someone wants to make money with postgreSQL he simply must not link with 
readline)
Best Postgresql Develgroup could do is to mention this fact in INSTALL as well
as README and a configure option called --without-readline (already there)
 


regards,
Christoph

PS: It really hurts to see UCB and GPL Licences so misunderstood.
Just take them as what they are:
Agreements of the sort: you get something (here: readline) you give sth. 
(sourceaccess(GPL)/mention us(UCB/BSD/GPL))
If some people can't agree to some clauses/options it's their problem.

Don't try to find problems when solutions are already implemented
[Stonebraker late 80's]

-- 
Christoph Hoegl / darkwing@bsdd.regensburg.com
Computer Science and Principle Research (ASNS: darkwing@berkeley.edu)
Siedlungsstr. 18 93128 Regenstauf Germany
12a Tellerrd. 94720 Berkeley CA USA
=> OOOOOOOOOOOOOO = NOW in the "TUNNEL IN NO TIME"-team = OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO =>




Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:26:21 +0200
Christoph Hoegl <darkwing@bsdd.regensburg.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?
>>>>> "CH" == Christoph Hoegl <darkwing@bsdd.regensburg.com> writes:

    CH> 2. GNU readline is a optional (though convenient) part of
    CH> postgreSQL (If someone wants to make money with postgreSQL he
    CH> simply must not link with readline)

Just for exactness: readline doesn't prevent you to make money with
anything, it only states licensing conditions (these are two quite
different things).

Milan Zamazal


22 Oct 1999 10:15:07 +0200
Milan Zamazal <pdm@debian.cz>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?