| 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: | 2688.1167407917@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-12-29 16:02:53 | Re: Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2006-12-29 15:52:24 | Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and |