* Martijn van Oosterhout (kleptog(at)svana(dot)org) wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 12:08:37AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > libjpeg, my other major open-source project, has always been shipped
> > under a BSD-ish license that includes an "advertising" clause; I quote:
> > : (2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying
> > : documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of
> > : the Independent JPEG Group".
> That's not an advertising clause, that merely asks that it be mentioned
> somewhere in the documentation, which is copied along with the rest of
> the code, so that's not limiting the redisitribution of anything. It
> also only applies when the source is not distributed, which means for
> the GPL it's a total non-issue.
Exactly. There isn't a "only executable code is distributed" case when
GPL code is involved so that clause wouldn't ever apply.
> Because there is a very large, very meaningful difference.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2006-12-29 13:52:43|
|Subject: Re: Dead Space Map for vacuum|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2006-12-29 13:35:00|
|Subject: XML support in MSVC build|