| From: | "Jochem van Dieten" <jochemd(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
| Date: | 2006-12-29 08:59:41 |
| Message-ID: | f96a9b830612290059k55f12543p3aeb03f655f84b75@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/29/06, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> So, Debian is distributing an application (exim4 w/ libpq & libssl)
> which includes GPL code (exim4) combined with code under another license
> (BSD w/ advertising clause) which *adds additional restrictions* (the
> advertising clause) over those in the GPL, which is against the terms of
> the GPL. It's *Debian's* problem, but *PostgreSQL* can solve it by
> providing the option to link against GNUTLS instead.
> In the case above, exim4 *can* provide an exception because it's the
> *GPL* of *exim4* which is being violated by the advertising clause in
> the *OpenSSL* license. Which exim4 upstream has *done*, and which can
> be seen in their license (linked to previously in this thread).
Considering that the problem is caused by the choice for a license so
restrictive it prohibits linking to OpenSSL, I think a license
exception in said restrictive license is exactly the right way for
Debian to solve their problem.
Jochem
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hubert FONGARNAND | 2006-12-29 09:06:31 | Re: WITH support |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-29 08:10:43 | Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and |