On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 22:18 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I appriciate your pedantism but in the end it really doesn't matter very
> > > much. This is, aiui anyway, the way Debian interprets the various
> > > licenses. You're welcome to your own interpretation.
> > That was my point --- that it isn't clear what "additional restrictions"
> > are, and that an advertizing clause or additional license can be
> > interpreted as the same thing.
> The point, from Debian's perspective anyway, is that they're *not* the
> same thing and one is an 'additional restriction' while the other isn't.
> It's pretty clear that the GPL has a clause requiring the distribution
> of the license associated with the work while it has no clause which
> requires statements in advertising material.
Well as has been stated previously by multiple members of this project.
We do not currently see an issue with the licensing and we do not see a
need to further our maintability with GNU TLS.
At this point the argument is just going in circles and is not
productive, secondly at this point it also seems more of an advocacy
discussion than a Hackers discussion. If we wish to continue can we move
it to that list please?
Joshua D. Drake
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: mark||Date: 2006-12-31 04:21:29|
|Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2006-12-31 03:44:18|
|Subject: Re: Doc bug|