* Tom Lane (tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Or are they selectively enforcing this > >> policy against PG? > > > It's enforced whenever we discover it, really... > > I am strongly tempted to pull Debian's chain by pointing out that > libjpeg has an advertising clause (a much weaker one than openssl's, > but nonetheless it wants you to acknowledge you used it) and demanding > they rebuild all their GPL'd desktop apps without JPEG support forthwith. Feel free to. > I'm with Chris Travers on this: it's a highly questionable reading > of the GPL, and I don't see why we should have to jump through extra > hoops (like make-work porting efforts) to satisfy debian-legal. It's > especially stupid because this is GPL code depending on BSD code, not > vice versa. I don't feel it's a questionable reading of the GPL at all. In fact, it's pretty clear and I'm about 99% sure the FSF has commented on this as well. It's true that it's unlikely anyone would actually sue Debian over it but that doesn't somehow change what the licenses say. Additionally, I think supporting GNUTLS would be a good thing for Postgres to do even without this issue. I'd also like to see it support SASL and a k5login-style user-controllable mapping. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
