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

Re: TODO: GNU TLS

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
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 19:44:28
Message-ID: 20061230194428.GU24675@kenobi.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > 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.

The GPL fully realizes that there may be other licenses out there which
is why it was written to talk about *restrictions*:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

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

The resulting binary.  Honestly, as I've tried to explain before, it's
not a PostgreSQL problem in general.  As such, while I'm happy to try
and explain it, I think people have heard enough about it and so will
try to refrain from discussing the detailed legal stuff more on these
lists.  Let me just say that Debian feels there's an issue with
distributing GPL applications linked against OpenSSL.  Thus, in general,
Debian likes to see GNUTLS as an option for commonly used libraries to
avoid the issue (as they see it) entirely.  I'd like to think that
Debian's preference for a library with a different license might at
least add some small amount of weight to the argument to include support
for a different library, but if not then that's pretty much how it goes
and we can just hope that the technical reasons themselves are enough.
Personally, I don't think Debian's alone in at least the preference for
a different license, but I can't say for sure.

I do agree that the technical merits should come first but thought the
licensing issue might be the straw that broke the camel's back, per se.

As much fun as it is discussing this here I don't see it changing
Debian's position.  Joshua has said he'll ask SPI's lawyer about it and
that might change things (though I tend to doubt it, personally).  It'll
be a while before we get an answer there though, I think.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2006-12-30 19:45:31
Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-12-30 19:35:05
Subject: Re: Sync Scan update

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