|WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing|
GHC replaced readline with libedit, and then libedit recently (as of 6.10.3) with Haskeline, which is rather feature limited at the moment but under heavy development. I've Haskeline to the list of links, but if there are yet more readline-style libraries being implemented (I know of only these three), we may want to consider starting a separate page listing readline-type libraries.
How can it be a point of criticism against Readline that software wanting to link against it does not abide by the terms it has been freely licensed by? That's akin to criticizing someone for not giving their belongings away for free. At best, you could call it a disadvantage to someone.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The edit that started the "Criticism" section appears to be from a disgruntled user. Does anyone think the criticism section contains a neutral point of view? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, then change the section title to something more neutral. The licensing terms of readline have been discussed again and again in many contexts. For example, somewhat famously, CLISP was not distributed under the GPL until Stallman convinced CLISP-developer Bruno Haible that their use of readline with CLISP constituted a violation of the GPL. Similar discussions can be found on many mailing lists, e.g. concerning Firebird, Lua, ncftp, or PostgreSQL. Stallman himself mentions readline as an example in his essay "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library". I guess what I am trying to say is that the controversies about readline's license are notable and should at least be mentioned in the article. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
readline/openssl license issue
In Debian psql is compliled against libedit and uses libreadline at runtime due to license issues with OpenSSL