Stephen Frost wrote:
My understanding is that most of the
non-FSF lawyers who have looked at this think it's not a problem. I am
not a lawyer, and AFAIK neither are you. Maybe we all need to stop
playing Perry Mason and take some well informed legal advice.
I'm certainly not a lawyer and I'd be astounded if anyone felt I
represented myself as such. I don't have opinions from any lawyers
beyond Tom's comments previously from RH's legal team and FSF's comments
on the issue. I don't know where the 'most of the non-FSF lawyers'
claim comes from, if you're aware of others who have commented on it I'd
be happy to listen to them.
I said that was my understanding, not that I had direct knowledge of it.
But maybe I'm wrong.
I do know that this has been an issue for
Debian for quite some time and it seems rather unlikely that Debian's
position on it will change. SPI does have a pro-bono lawyer but I
don't know that this question has been posed to him, probably because
the general consensus among the Debian Powers that Be is that it is an
issue and we try to not bother our pro-bono lawyer too much (being, uh,
pro-bono and all).
I have a sneaking suspicion that there are some hidden agendas in all this.
I agree with this comment from Steve Langasek at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/01/msg00022.html :
Sure, code can be rewritten to use gnutls natively. But I don't
understand why anyone would consider this a useful expenditure of
developer resources when the necessary OpenSSL compat glue could simply
be made available under the LGPL.
If this is such an issue, why hasn't somebody done that?
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
