| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
| Date: | 2006-12-28 18:01:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20061228180141.GP24675@kenobi.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Joshua D. Drake (jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
> What is the consideration here? I read the thread and it appears that
> OpenSSL is not compatible with GPL? But we don't care about that right?
> The OpenSSL looks pretty BSDish to me, expect the advertising clause (is
> that what caused XFree86.org to fork?).
OpenSSL isn't compatible with the GPL. We do care because GPL
applications link against libpq and therefore can end up linking against
OpenSSL. I don't believe it was the OpenSSL advertising clause that
caused the XFree86.org fork. My vaugue recollection is that XFree86
changed their license to include something like an advertising clause
and that's what cause the split.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-28 18:02:24 | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-28 18:01:28 | Re: TODO: Particularly, move GPL-licensed |