Steven Drake <sbd%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > >> Please be very careful about adding readline dependencies on stuff. >> It is only legal with GPL compatible code... > > I've checked and they all GPL compatible, but I would thing that the > authors would not use or try to use readline if the programs are not > GPL compatible. It's a bit more subtle. First, I'll accept that dynamic linking creates a derived work (although that's not really settled). Building a package with a base GPL-incompatible license and readline is permissible. But it can't be *distributed*. This is a nit, and really I agree with Joerg. Strictly, a package that bl3s in readline should have LICENSE=foo AND gnu-gpl-v3. Arguably that should be part of the infrastructure and in the bl3 file. Realistically, I'm not sure there are people that object to GPL3 as a license of packages they install. So it may not be worth worrying about. Also: Don't we have editline? Is there a way to use it instead, and should there be a mk/? fiel instead? In some packages, readline is controlled by an option. But, there may not be enough interest in that to be worth the trouble.
Description: PGP signature