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


From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS
Date: 2006-12-31 16:49:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc wrote:
>> Nobody has proven an issue exists. The only way to prove it would be
>> for an actual court case to set the precident.

That's exactly the mentality that I'm questioning. Why always go to 
legal boundaries and ask for courts?

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Further, OpenSSL is not saying that an issue exists for them. They are
> saying that *some* people *may* have a problem with it.

Neither do they say that one can simply ignore their advertising clause 
and that everybody is save from being sued.

And further, the OpenSSL license is not violated if OpenSSL in included 
in GPL software, the GPL license is. Thus it's probably quite irrelevant 
what the OpenSSL FAQ says about GPL violations.

I agree that PostgreSQL (being BSD-like) should not care too much about 
the GPL. But we should care about the OpenSSL license, as they seem to 
take their advertising clause quite serious.

> At a minimum, please move this thread to -advocacy. 

I disagree, sorry. IMO, this is an important subject hackers should know 
about. (And it has nothing to do with "PostgreSQL vs. the rest. 
Promotional ideas, etc.", what -advocacy is said to be about.)



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-12-31 17:32:21
Subject: Re: A possible TODO item
Previous:From: Stefan KaltenbrunnerDate: 2006-12-31 16:43:45
Subject: Re: Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD

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