* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Ah, this does sound rather ugly and not something we'd want.  The
> > particular library doesn't make a whole heck of alot of difference to me
> > provided it has the general functionality necessary and a compatible
> > license (where 'compatible' in this case really means 'Debian feels it
> > is compatible with the GPL').  It'd be wonderful if OpenSSL's license
> > was the same license PostgreSQL has.  Honestly, we'd be happy to stop
> > pissing off both those who license their code under the GPL (by asking
> > for exceptions for OpenSSL) and core library maintainers (by asking for
> > GNUTLS support, though in general I like to have options).
> Keep in mind in most cases OpenSSL is already part of the operating
> system, unless you are using Win32.

Debian, at least, doesn't consider it as such (wouldn't really make much
sense since you could claim everything in Debian is part of the OS).
That's my understanding anyway, and goes for pretty much everything in



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to