Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS
Date: 2006-12-28 18:01:41
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Joshua D. Drake (jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
> What is the consideration here? I read the thread and it appears that
> OpenSSL is not compatible with GPL? But we don't care about that right?
> The OpenSSL looks pretty BSDish to me, expect the advertising clause (is
> that what caused to fork?).

OpenSSL isn't compatible with the GPL.  We do care because GPL
applications link against libpq and therefore can end up linking against
OpenSSL.  I don't believe it was the OpenSSL advertising clause that
caused the fork.  My vaugue recollection is that XFree86
changed their license to include something like an advertising clause
and that's what cause the split.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-12-28 18:02:24
Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-12-28 18:01:28
Subject: Re: TODO: Particularly, move GPL-licensed

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group