Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpollock | Hacker News Reader

	    libreadline.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libreadline.so.6 (0x00007ff182e5d000)

libreadline is GPL'ed, not LGPLed, Kerf is therefore in violation.

https://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/php/chet/readline/rltop.html

Edit: The GPL doesn't allow any linking into non-GPL compatible software, dynamic or static. Readline has this license for exactly this reason, and they have forced software into the public with it before (ncftp comes to mind)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynam...

Edit2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Readline#Implications_of_G...

View on HN

It is not statically linked but loaded dynamically at runtime (see my comment above). And I think the .so is not bundled by UPX/shipped with the binary either. I believe this usecase is explicitly allowed by the GPL, but IANAL, so happy to be corrected.

EDIT: Looks like I stand corrected and this is NOT the case even if you are just dynamically linking a GPLed .so; check parent's links/ask a proper lawyer/please don't sue me ;)

Even though its dynamically linked the GPL still applies. The LGPL is designed to allow you to link to the software without requiring you to use the GPL license. Also since you have made your binary available you are required to make the source code you have used to make this release publicly available.

I don't think anyone cares enough to sue you, however you are clearly in violation.

I am not the author of kerf/the linked software ;)

The OSX version links against libedit. The Linux version is supposed to as well so if it isn't that's an oversight. Let me take a look.

I've committed a Linux version that for sure uses libedit. It is decidedly not my intention to use libreadline.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com