Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.




In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-12-29 13:52:43
Subject: Re: Dead Space Map for vacuum
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2006-12-29 13:35:00
Subject: XML support in MSVC build

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group