On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 19:13, Stephen Frost wrote: > * 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. So, do GPL have this problem linking against OpenSSL as well?
