| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tyler MacDonald <tyler(at)yi(dot)org>, lmyho <lm_yho(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module |
| Date: | 2006-04-08 01:04:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1144458283.32269.48.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 19:31, Douglas McNaught wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> writes:
>
> >> 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?
>
> Yes, that's why GPL apps like Exim and Courier have explicit license
> clauses permitting it.
So, it's freeradius that needs the exception then, right?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tyler MacDonald | 2006-04-08 03:37:35 | Re: Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module |
| Previous Message | Douglas McNaught | 2006-04-08 00:31:03 | Re: Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module |