* Joshua D. Drake (jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 13:01 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > OpenSSL isn't compatible with the GPL.
> The original discussion stated that well placed attorneys in the market
> feel that the FSF is trying to reach beyond the hands of god on this one
> and that we don't need to worry about it (my words, for actual quote
> read thread ;)).
Yeah, that's nice.
> > We do care because GPL
> > applications link against libpq and therefore can end up linking against
> > OpenSSL. \
> Our concern is whether PostgreSQL is legally linked, not if something
> else is. /me is trying to think very hard of a program that is GPL that
> links to to PostgreSQL that would have a problem....
Looking at it from the point of view that psql if fine and therefore
there isn't a problem is *very* short-sighted.
Some of the packages currently in Debian/unstable which are licensed
under the GPL and linked against libpq4 (a few of which have already
provided exceptions for linking against OpenSSL):
asterisk (which has provided an OpenSSL exception)
bacula (which has provided an OpenSSL exception)
exim4 (which has provided an OpenSSL exception)
gnugk (which has provided an OpenSSL exception)
And quite a few others, I'm sure, I just got tired of looking.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2006-12-28 18:46:37|
|Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-12-28 18:36:00|
|Subject: Re: Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD |