On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 19:13, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > >> Or are they selectively enforcing this
> > >> policy against PG?
> >
> > > It's enforced whenever we discover it, really...
> >
> > I am strongly tempted to pull Debian's chain by pointing out that
> > libjpeg has an advertising clause (a much weaker one than openssl's,
> > but nonetheless it wants you to acknowledge you used it) and demanding
> > they rebuild all their GPL'd desktop apps without JPEG support forthwith.
>
> Feel free to.
>
> > I'm with Chris Travers on this: it's a highly questionable reading
> > of the GPL, and I don't see why we should have to jump through extra
> > hoops (like make-work porting efforts) to satisfy debian-legal. It's
> > especially stupid because this is GPL code depending on BSD code, not
> > vice versa.
>
> I don't feel it's a questionable reading of the GPL at all. In fact,
> it's pretty clear and I'm about 99% sure the FSF has commented on this
> as well. It's true that it's unlikely anyone would actually sue Debian
> over it but that doesn't somehow change what the licenses say.
> Additionally, I think supporting GNUTLS would be a good thing for
> Postgres to do even without this issue. I'd also like to see it support
> SASL and a k5login-style user-controllable mapping.
So, do GPL have this problem linking against OpenSSL as well?