Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, Debian is distributing an application (exim4 w/ libpq & libssl) > which includes GPL code (exim4) combined with code under another license > (BSD w/ advertising clause) which *adds additional restrictions* (the > advertising clause) over those in the GPL, which is against the terms of > the GPL.
Stephen, let me explain *exactly* why I think this is horsepucky. libjpeg, my other major open-source project, has always been shipped under a BSD-ish license that includes an "advertising" clause; I quote: : (2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying : documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of : the Independent JPEG Group". Curiously, every single GPL-license web browser in the world uses libjpeg. Until I see a widespread willingness to remove JPEG support in GPL-licensed software, and/or somebody providing a pure-GPL replacement for libjpeg, I am not going to take this argument seriously. There is exactly zero meaningful difference between the libjpeg license terms and the OpenSSL terms, but where is the pushback on libjpeg? I have not seen any, in all the years I worked on that project. (At one point RMS did make a half-hearted attempt to get me to relicense libjpeg as GPL, but I have never seen any indication whatsoever that anyone else cared.) regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq