Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 
> To have your wrapper GPL-free you'd have to have used none of the code
> from the GPL'd source. Otherwise you'd be caught by section 2b below.

I take care. I have had to read some readline code to find out what
does it exactly do, but the code is implemented independantly of
original readline stu^Haff.

> 
> The other question is about the docs. You certainly can't un-GPL them. But
> you might be able to distribute them. I think you'd need to distribute
> them as a seperate item. For instance, if they end up in a seperate sub
> directory, you might be able to say, "My program's here, and there's some
> extra documentation over there." A seperate tar file definitely would do
> it.

I think the best approach would be to say "it tries to emulate
readline lib using editline; see readline documentation for details"
or something like this. I would not like to see editline GPL-poisoned
just because some GPL'ed documentation is included; it won't be
used by NetBSD folks anyway. Let's get the safe way ;-)

jd
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek             ICS MU, Botanicka 68A, Brno, 60200, Czech Rep.
dolecek@ics.muni.cz			Tel.: +42-5-4151 2280
http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is better never to have been born.  But who among us has such luck?
One in a million, perhaps.