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


From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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 15:58:37
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> 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's not a fact, that's an opinion, and unless you're a lawyer who's
studied the matter, I don't think your opinion carries much weight.
Admittedly mine doesn't either --- but the point here is that it's
extremely debatable whether there is any real difference between OpenSSL
and other projects that no one is complaining about.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-12-29 16:02:53
Subject: Re: Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD
Previous:From: Florian G. PflugDate: 2006-12-29 15:52:24
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and

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