Re: libguile and readline

[Lalo Martins <lalo@webcom.com>]

On Feb 10, Lalo Martins decided to present us with:
>   Do programs that link with libguile _really_ need libreadline?
>   Isn't that bloat? Doesn't it add a problem to the fact that
>   libguile is GPL? AFAICS, if libguile links with readline then it
>   can't be LGPLed.

On Feb 11, Greg Troxel decided to present us with:
> 
> No, it means that you can only distribute the resulting binaries if
> libguile can be distributed under the GPL.  (The GPL can't require
> license terms; it just prohibits copying if the terms of other code
> aren't acceptable.)  guile's copying terms are GPL, with an exception
> that linking a program with it does not cause the GPL to apply to the
> resulting binary.
> 
> I think this is important to keep in mind as things are added to
> guile; IMHO they shouldn't be part of the core if the exception
> doesn't apply.
> 
> Of course the whole issue of dynamic linking makes this muddled; I'm
> not trying to start a flame about this.

Uh, wait. We're dealing with GNU software here - copyrights
owned by FSF, and an important part of the GNU system. Licenses
_are_ a major point.

The guile _sources_ can be distributed on LGPL; but as soon as
the binaries get linked with readline, they fall under GPL. Any
program that links libguile is under GPL. This _is_ a problem.
No, this is a major bug.

[]s,
                                               |alo
                                               +----
--
      I am Lalo of deB-org. You will be freed.
                 Resistance is futile.

http://www.webcom.com/lalo      mailto:lalo@webcom.com
                 pgp key in the web page

Debian GNU/Linux       --        http://www.debian.org