| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2006-12-31 03:18:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20061231031804.GA24675@kenobi.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I appriciate your pedantism but in the end it really doesn't matter very
> > much. This is, aiui anyway, the way Debian interprets the various
> > licenses. You're welcome to your own interpretation.
>
> That was my point --- that it isn't clear what "additional restrictions"
> are, and that an advertizing clause or additional license can be
> interpreted as the same thing.
The point, from Debian's perspective anyway, is that they're *not* the
same thing and one is an 'additional restriction' while the other isn't.
It's pretty clear that the GPL has a clause requiring the distribution
of the license associated with the work while it has no clause which
requires statements in advertising material.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2006-12-31 03:32:48 | Re: Doc bug |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-12-31 03:15:44 | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |