3 ms·
The only point that matters about Readline is that if you link your BSD program to it, then when you distribute the binary, you also have to provide the source
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
The only point that matters about Readline is that if you link your BSD program to it, then when you distribute the binary, you also have to provide the source to your entire program. This makes it effectively GPL, because the BSD license has no such requirement. That is what the term "viral" refers to.
- sparkie 13y agoThat's not the case: you cannot distribute the linked binary under any license other than GPL. You can only distribute the BSD code (or compiled, unlinked object code) which calls readline functions, only if you do not distribute readline with it. If your code makes calls to readline functions, and you distribute readline with it, it is undoubtedly a "covered work" as described by the GPL, and is subject to section 5.c of the license which states that the whole work must be GPL if distributed
- foobarbazqux 13y ago5.c says "This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it." So you can distribute a BSD project with readline, and recipients are free to choose the BSD license for the BSD part and then distribute a closed source binary linked against a compatible readline replacement. The GPL does not invalidate the permissions granted by the BSD license. The only goal of the FSF here is that the source code for anything distributed linked with readline be made available under the GPL. They don't stipulate that it only be made available under the GPL and not any other license.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]