On 12/29/06, Stephen Frost wrote:
> So, Debian is distributing an application (exim4 w/ libpq & libssl)
> which includes GPL code (exim4) combined with code under another license
> (BSD w/ advertising clause) which *adds additional restrictions* (the
> advertising clause) over those in the GPL, which is against the terms of
> the GPL. It's *Debian's* problem, but *PostgreSQL* can solve it by
> providing the option to link against GNUTLS instead.
> In the case above, exim4 *can* provide an exception because it's the
> *GPL* of *exim4* which is being violated by the advertising clause in
> the *OpenSSL* license. Which exim4 upstream has *done*, and which can
> be seen in their license (linked to previously in this thread).
Considering that the problem is caused by the choice for a license so
restrictive it prohibits linking to OpenSSL, I think a license
exception in said restrictive license is exactly the right way for
Debian to solve their problem.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hubert FONGARNAND||Date: 2006-12-29 09:06:31|
|Subject: Re: WITH support|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-12-29 08:10:43|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and |