[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will try again. It is a difficult subject for many.
GPL software derived from PostgreSQL must honour the restrictions defined
by the PostgreSQL (BSD) license.
GPL software derived from OpenSSL must honour the restrictions defined
by the OpenSSL license.
What is the difference? Do you see it? You speak of "compatibility" as
if it means that the above are different in some technical way. They
are NOT different. Just because the GPL >= the PostgreSQL license,
does not allow you to disobey the PostgreSQL license restrictions. You
*cannot* release your entire derived GPL product as GPL, if it is
distributed with PostgreSQL. The PostgreSQL component retains the
PostgreSQL licensing restrictions, The GPL restrictions do not
supercede or replace the PostgreSQL component and there is NOTHING the
GPL can do to change this.
I think the issue revolves around the conditions that GPL stipulates
about "linking against" libraries requiring the entire product to be
*distributed* as GPL, even if components have differing licenses. This
is the so-called "viral" clause that gets much attention!
Now as Tom pointed out, I dunno why OpenSSL suddenly gets so much
attention, but anyway, just trying to clarify why *in principle* that
Stephen F is talking about a valid *possible* interpretation of the
licensing maze...
Cheers
Mark
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
