On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 12:08:37AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 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".
That's not an advertising clause, that merely asks that it be mentioned somewhere in the documentation, which is copied along with the rest of the code, so that's not limiting the redisitribution of anything. It also only applies when the source is not distributed, which means for the GPL it's a total non-issue. The OpenSSL licence on the other hand wants any advertising material of any application mentioning the use of SSL to include the acknowledgement. This would include flyers printed for a conference, or the label of the CD that contains it. Surely you can see the difference? > 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. Because there is a very large, very meaningful difference. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <email@example.com> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate.
Description: Digital signature