* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
