On 2010-03-18, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:
Please don’t repeat this, because as I pointed out on ruby-core, it’s
not true. it’s not illegal to load libreadline and openssl in the same
process; it’s illegal to ship software that contains both. Neither the
OpenSSL license nor the GNU GPL address use or incidental in-memory
copies, only distribution.
The issue is, historically, that the FSF has claimed that a program
written to use the libreadline API is thereby a “derivative work” of
libreadline. A while back, they were arguing that the only way this
would be untrue would be if someone were to create a call-compatible
“readline” implementation, so that code couldn’t be shown to be
unable to work without libreadline.
Which is funny, because I know of at least one such implementation
dating
back to 1992. Rich $alz posted it, with these terms:
X Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose
on
X any computer system, and to alter it and redistribute it freely,
subject
X to the following restrictions:
X 1. The authors are not responsible for the consequences of use of this
X software, no matter how awful, even if they arise from flaws in it.
X 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either by
X explicit claim or by omission. Since few users ever read sources,
X credits must appear in the documentation.
X 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
X misrepresented as being the original software. Since few users
X ever read sources, credits must appear in the documentation.
X 4. This notice may not be removed or altered.
(Yes, it was a shar script.)
Long story short: There hasn’t been a problem with stuff merely
designed
to work with readline or something compatible with it since 1992 or
possibly
earlier.
-s
