Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #267201 > unrolled thread

Re: Generic Linux / clib question

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Generic Linux / clib question Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-02-09 23:40 +0100
    Re: Generic Linux / clib question Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-02-10 00:40 +0100
      Re: Generic Linux / clib question <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-10 07:20 +0100
        Re: Generic Linux / clib question "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2024-02-10 08:50 +0100
          Re: Generic Linux / clib question <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-10 10:30 +0100

#267201 — Re: Generic Linux / clib question

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 02:30:54PM -0800, Van Snyder wrote:
> Years ago, I knew the name of the routines one could use to have some
> stdin history and be able to edit it, like you can do in XTerm or
> gnuplot or ....
> 
> I can't remember them now, or find them.

I think you're talking about the readline library, which is used by bash
(I assume that's what you meant by "XTerm") and some other programs.

What, exactly, are you trying to do?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#267205

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 03:20:46PM -0800, Van Snyder wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-02-09 at 17:37 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 02:30:54PM -0800, Van Snyder wrote:
> > > Years ago, I knew the name of the routines one could use to have some
> > > stdin history and be able to edit it, like you can do in XTerm or
> > > gnuplot or ....
> > > 
> > > I can't remember them now, or find them.
> > 
> > I think you're talking about the readline library, which is used by bash
> > (I assume that's what you meant by "XTerm") and some other programs.
> > 
> > What, exactly, are you trying to do?
> 
> I'm hoping to convince Intel to add it to the stdin runtime support for
> ifx and ifort Fortran compilers.

The readline library is released under the full GPL, not the LGPL.  If
you dynamically link it with a program, then you can only release that
program under terms compatible with the GPL.  This is an intentional
choice.

I don't know anything about those two programs, but if they aren't already
being released under the GPL, I doubt Intel would choose to do it just to
add readline support.

You might have better results advocating for libedit, as Thomas suggested.

Or, if your *actual goal* is to have better editing in these programs
for your own *personal* use, rather than changing the world, maybe you
could just run them under the rlwrap program.

unicorn:~$ apt-cache show rlwrap
[...]
Description-en: readline feature command line wrapper
 This package provides a small utility that uses the GNU readline library
 to allow the editing of keyboard input for any other command.  Input
 history is remembered across invocations, separately for each command;
 history completion and search work as in bash and completion word lists
 can be specified on the command line.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267214

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 06:36:18PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:

[...]

> The readline library is released under the full GPL, not the LGPL.  If
> you dynamically link it with a program, then you can only release that
> program under terms compatible with the GPL.  This is an intentional
> choice.
> 
> I don't know anything about those two programs, but if they aren't already
> being released under the GPL, I doubt Intel would choose to do it just to
> add readline support.

Nitpick: "...they aren't being released under a GPL compatible license and
the lawyers at Intel don't mind the linking result to become GPL".

Practically it doesn't change much, but for some lawyer at Intel it might.

Actually there is at least one well-known example [1] for this: libpq.

The gist is that, if the user is the one doing the last linking step,
all is fine. She's allowed anything.

Cheers

[1] https://postgrespro.com/list/thread-id/1596439
-- 
tomás

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267216

Hi,

Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > The readline library is released under the full GPL, not the LGPL.  If
> > you dynamically link it with a program, then you can only release that
> > program under terms compatible with the GPL.  This is an intentional
> > choice.

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Practically it doesn't change much, but for some lawyer at Intel it might.

A substantial problem can be that libreadline became "GPLv3 or later" a
few years ago and that GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2-only (i.e. not
"or later"). The main reason is in the patent-fighting restrictions in
GPLv3, which would be forbidden extra restrictions under GPLv2.

So at best this causes "GPLv2 or later" programs to become "GPLv3 or later",
like the Debian binary of xorriso. At worst you would have a license clash
and would have to resort to e.g. libedit. (Not what the FSF would like.)


> The gist is that, if the user is the one doing the last linking step,
> all is fine. She's allowed anything.

She's allowed to use it but not to give it to others without obeying the
demands and restrictions of GPL.

Personally i would be ok with a more liberal use of my GPL'ed software.
But the official stance of the FSF is that the license applies on first
contact. In case of libreadline this would the line
  #include <readline/readline.h>
and as next occasion the preparations of the compiler and linker to employ
libreadline.so at run time.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267217

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 08:45:32AM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > The readline library is released under the full GPL, not the LGPL.  If
> > > you dynamically link it with a program, then you can only release that
> > > program under terms compatible with the GPL.  This is an intentional
> > > choice.
> 
> tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Practically it doesn't change much, but for some lawyer at Intel it might.
> 
> A substantial problem can be that libreadline became "GPLv3 or later" a
> few years ago and that GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2-only (i.e. not
> "or later"). The main reason is in the patent-fighting restrictions in
> GPLv3, which would be forbidden extra restrictions under GPLv2.

Yep, thanks for pointing that out. The "main" program would then have to
be GPLv3 compatible. There's no perfect world, sigh.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web