| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tyler MacDonald <tyler(at)yi(dot)org>, lmyho <lm_yho(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module |
| Date: | 2006-04-07 23:58:23 |
| Message-ID: | 18115.1144454303@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)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.
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-04-08 00:13:22 | Re: Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-04-07 23:41:07 | Re: Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module |