| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
| Date: | 2006-12-30 18:38:59 |
| Message-ID: | 200612301838.kBUIcxI09678@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost wrote:
> Yet *having* that requirement on a *derived work* which includes GPL
> code is *against* the terms of the GPL. That's *exactly* the issue.
> The GPL says more than "you must provide the source code to everything",
> it explicitly includes a requirement that no additional restrictions be
> put on the derivative (lest requirements for no-additional-distribution
> or must-charge-for-other-distribution be added which defeats much of the
> point of the GPL).
Our BSD license has this restriction:
> provided that the above copyright notice and this
> paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.
Why is this not an _additional_ restriction, and hence GPL and BSD
software cannot be bundled into a binary? What does "appear in all
copies" mean, especially if you don't need to ship the source code under
the BSD license?
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-12-30 18:44:14 | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-30 18:32:38 | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |