> I will try again. It is a difficult subject for many.
> GPL software derived from PostgreSQL must honour the restrictions defined
> by the PostgreSQL (BSD) license.
> GPL software derived from OpenSSL must honour the restrictions defined
> by the OpenSSL license.
> What is the difference? Do you see it? You speak of "compatibility" as
> if it means that the above are different in some technical way. They
> are NOT different. Just because the GPL >= the PostgreSQL license,
> does not allow you to disobey the PostgreSQL license restrictions. You
> *cannot* release your entire derived GPL product as GPL, if it is
> distributed with PostgreSQL. The PostgreSQL component retains the
> PostgreSQL licensing restrictions, The GPL restrictions do not
> supercede or replace the PostgreSQL component and there is NOTHING the
> GPL can do to change this.
I think the issue revolves around the conditions that GPL stipulates
about "linking against" libraries requiring the entire product to be
*distributed* as GPL, even if components have differing licenses. This
is the so-called "viral" clause that gets much attention!
Now as Tom pointed out, I dunno why OpenSSL suddenly gets so much
attention, but anyway, just trying to clarify why *in principle* that
Stephen F is talking about a valid *possible* interpretation of the
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-12-29 08:10:43|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and |
|Previous:||From: mark||Date: 2006-12-29 06:47:48|
|Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS|