| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
| Date: | 2006-12-29 13:52:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20061229135208.GZ24675@kenobi.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Martijn van Oosterhout (kleptog(at)svana(dot)org) wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 12:08:37AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > libjpeg, my other major open-source project, has always been shipped
> > under a BSD-ish license that includes an "advertising" clause; I quote:
> >
> > : (2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying
> > : documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of
> > : the Independent JPEG Group".
>
> That's not an advertising clause, that merely asks that it be mentioned
> somewhere in the documentation, which is copied along with the rest of
> the code, so that's not limiting the redisitribution of anything. It
> also only applies when the source is not distributed, which means for
> the GPL it's a total non-issue.
Exactly. There isn't a "only executable code is distributed" case when
GPL code is involved so that clause wouldn't ever apply.
> Because there is a very large, very meaningful difference.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-29 13:52:43 | Re: Dead Space Map for vacuum |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-12-29 13:35:00 | XML support in MSVC build |