Re: [PATCH] Add support for GnuTLS

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for GnuTLS
Date: 2006-06-01 13:04:36
Message-ID: 200606011504.37742.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Am Dienstag, 30. Mai 2006 05:21 schrieb Tom Lane:
> FWIW, Red Hat's legal department thinks that the FSF has "overreached"
> in claiming that the GPL is incompatible with OpenSSL's license. Which
> is why Red Hat isn't worrying about GPL apps that use OpenSSL, of which
> there are quite a few ...

Here is some feedback from debian-legal about this:

"""
Based on this little snippet, it is unclear to me exactly what Red
Hat's legal department has said. Are they saying that the OpenSSL
license is not incompatible with the GPL? The advertising clause
seems like a clear incompatiblity.

Or are they saying that the GPL does not actually restrict people from
linking in libraries and distributing the result? That reading is
contradicted by a plain reading of the GPL.

What is most likely is that Red Hat's legal department has decided the
risk of suffering damages from distributing GPL'd programs linked with
OpenSSL is sufficiently low that they do not have to worry about it.
Debian tends to be much more conservative in this regard, partly
because the risk is borne by third parties (e.g. mirror operators and
CD vendors).
"""

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-06-01 13:35:43 Re: [PATCH] Improve EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead by sampling
Previous Message Robert Treat 2006-06-01 11:46:56 Re: [PATCH] Magic block for modules