* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 12:08:37AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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's not a fact, that's an opinion, and unless you're a lawyer who's
> studied the matter, I don't think your opinion carries much weight.

It doesn't say "All advertising materials ...", that makes it quite
different from the OpenSSL clause.  It also has the 'if only executable
code is distributed' conditional, which the OpenSSL clause doesn't.
Sure, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd have a hard time believing the two
clauses so similar as to have the exact same effect with such

> Admittedly mine doesn't either --- but the point here is that it's
> extremely debatable whether there is any real difference between OpenSSL
> and other projects that no one is complaining about.

Each case is different and is considered seperately.  I'm pretty
sure that the libjpeg case has been considered and was found to not be a
problem.  While perhaps more cautious than most, Debian isn't actually
out to make all the world GPL or to attempt to brow-beat everyone into
following Stallman.  We'd be perfectly happy for OpenSSL to just drop
that clause but otherwise leave the license as BSDish, or even to change
it to a clause such as that above (though if they can change the license
at all, seems like it'd be best to just drop it, but whatever).  Were
that to happen we'd stop caring about using GNUTLS (at least, as a



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to