* Tom Lane (tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > The courts are pretty likely to strongly consider the copyright holder's > > opinion of the license when deciding how to interpret it. > > It's worth pointing out here that > > 1. Debian is not the copyright holder. Not sure where you got the idea that I was suggesting they were, I certainly wasn't. > 2. The copyright holders, in this case the authors of freeradius, saw > no problem with it. They'd hardly have written GPL-licensed software > that depends on a BSD-licensed package if they did, because the strict > intepretation says that their code is undistributable, and obviously > they intend to distribute it. GPL-licensed software depending on a BSD-licensed package *isn't* a problem. If we didn't link Postgres w/ OpenSSL this wouldn't be any issue at all. If the freeradius authors explicitly say they don't have a problem linking against a BSD-with-advertising-clause license (or even explicitly exempt OpenSSL) then it's all fine. Saying that because they wrote freeradius to support Postgres that they implicitly approve of the OpenSSL license is a more than a bit of a stretch. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
