From: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 22:06:03 |
Message-ID: | 87ek0911o4.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tyler MacDonald <tyler(at)yi(dot)org> writes:
>> OK, I'm kind of confused about how the legal red tape works here.
>> Debian packages all sorts of GPL code, and both openssl and postgres are
>> released under more liberal licenses. About the only legal issue I could see
>> is the legalities surrounding the export of openssl, but I thought debian
>> had already found it's own way around that.
>
> [ looks in openssl tarball... ] It looks like the openssl license is
> essentially old-style BSD (ie, with advertising clause). If Debian is
> being anal about refusing to ship old-BSD code linked to GPL code,
> there's going to be a whole lot of stuff that doesn't support SSL on
> Debian, not only Postgres. Or are they selectively enforcing this
> policy against PG?
I don't think so. I got curious and looked at what's on my Ubuntu
system: Courier IMAP is GPL with an additional clause that explicitly
allows linking with OpenSSL; Postfix has an Apache-ish license; Exim
is GPL and also explicitly allows linking with OpenSSL; Cyrus IMAP is
BSDish; Apache is non-GPL... I can't think offhand of anything that
is GPL and links with OpenSSL without an explicit clause permitting
same.
-Doug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-07 22:08:23 | Re: Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-07 21:44:37 | Re: Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module |