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

Re: TODO: GNU TLS

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS
Date: 2006-12-30 19:21:21
Message-ID: 200612301921.kBUJLMc00708@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Yet *having* that requirement on a *derived work* which includes GPL
> > > code is *against* the terms of the GPL.  That's *exactly* the issue.
> > > The GPL says more than "you must provide the source code to everything",
> > > it explicitly includes a requirement that no additional restrictions be
> > > put on the derivative (lest requirements for no-additional-distribution
> > > or must-charge-for-other-distribution be added which defeats much of the
> > > point of the GPL).
> > 
> > Our BSD license has this restriction: 
> > 
> > > provided that the above copyright notice and this
> > > paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.
> > 
> > Why is this not an _additional_ restriction, and hence GPL and BSD
> > software cannot be bundled into a binary?  What does "appear in all
> > copies" mean, especially if you don't need to ship the source code under
> > the BSD license?
> 
> As I pointed out previously, it's part of the copyright notice, and the
> GPL has the exact same requirement:
> 
>   1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
>   source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
>   conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
>   copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
>   notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
>   and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
>   along with the Program.
> 
> So it's *not* an additional restriction.  Not to mention the other
> reason- the license isn't part of the *work*.

It is an _additional_ license you have to include, not just their
license.  I don't see how requiring an advertizing clause is an
additional restriction, but requiring an additional license isn't.

I don't understand the "work" issue as it applies here.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2006-12-30 19:22:59
Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2006-12-30 19:21:18
Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group