Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Except that's the GPL'd applications' licenses that are being violated, not yours. On the other hand have you checked any of the commercial products based on Debian to see if they're satisfying your advertising clause? I thought there was also a separate thread in this story in that the advertising clause was considered legally unenforceable and hence not really a problem for the GPL anyways. I'm not sure what happened to that story though and whether it was ever considered the case outside the US. > 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. FWIW in any of the cases like where GPL'd application authors have actually pursued the issue the alleged infringers have always backed down after checking with lawyers. The classic example being the Objective-C frontend for gcc. In that case it was even *more* decoupled in that there wasn't even shared library linkage. It was purely a command-line and file format interface. Note that (as I understand it) nobody is saying Postgres is infringing on anything. Only that combining postgres with OpenSSL and Freeradius results in a combination of license restrictions that can't all be met at the same time. So the resulting binary package (which is useless without those other pieces of software) can't be legally distributed. -- greg
