Re: TODO: GNU TLS - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200612301844.kBUIiwU10231@momjian.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: TODO: GNU TLS (mark@mark.mielke.cc) |
Responses |
Re: TODO: GNU TLS
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
If you want real language-lawyer over-reach, check out this 2003 posting that says our BSD license wording is not compatible with the OpenBSD BSD license: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2003-11/msg00212.php OpenBSD feels the "without fee" can be misinterpreted, so PostgreSQL was removed from their CDROM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote: > > > Now Exim has granted an exception that gets Debian off the hook, but > > > they didn't have to do that. > > Right. If they didn't then it's conceivable that Exim could sue Debian > > for violating the GPL license. Not exactly likely to happen but being > > cautious it's best to get their explicit approval rather than playing > > the "well, we'll just wait and see if they sue us" game. > > This is pure FUD, and unacceptable if spoken from a position of > authority. State what you think this theoretical case would be. At > least if you picked GPL including closed source code, you might be > able to claim that the resulting derived work was not distributed > complete with source code. OpenSSL, however, is open source. The only > possible complaint could be "you failed to advertise OpenSSL in the > resulting distributed image", which would be a correct observation, > easily corrected by the inclusion of a note in the documentation for > the distributed software unit that includes both pieces of software. > This correction is an existing requirement for any software > distribution that includes OpenSSL, It is an acceptable, and easily > honoured requirement. > > Anybody who has a problem admitting that their software distribution > includes OpenSSL software in their documentation, has no sympathy from > me. Attribution is an acceptable right to enforce under copyright law, > and an honourable practice with or without a licensing requirement > explicitly stating this as a requirement. > > Caution to the point of fantasy is a waste of resources. Caution to > further a political agenda (not you - but the people whose opinions you > are repeating) is exploitation. > > I am unable to find a single clause in the GPL (which I have analyzed > many years ago, but also re-read several times in the last two days) > that would make it impossible to satisfy all of the GPL, PostgreSQL > (BSD) license, and the OpenSSL license at the same time. Every single > clause of all three licenses can be easily satisfied without conflict. > Those of you who are claiming otherwise, have failed to point to a > single phrase in the GPL that could not be satisfied when distributing > all three pieces of software as a single unit. Without a single point > of true conflict between all three licenses, I do not accept that > there is any case to require an OpenSSL exemption clause for > Debian. Those who are doing so are doing a disservice to everyone by > contributing to the general confusion on this subject. The clause is > not required. The clause has no effect. > > To distribute a software unit that includes software from all of a > GPL product, PostgreSQL, and OpenSSL, one needs only do the following: > > 1) Documentation for the software unit should include documentation > to describe that the software includes OpenSSL. > > 2) The distribution of the software unit should include a text copy > of all three licenses. > > 3) Source code for the entire unit should be provided. I don't believe > the FSF can legally enforce this requirement, however, with > GPL + PostgreSQL + OpenSSL, there is *NO* conflict. The source code > for all three can be made available upon request, or contained within > the distribution. > > 4) Various other minor points, such as the requirement that changes > are dated and such. None of which conflict between the three licenses. > > To state again. There is *NO* conflict between the licenses. The terms > of each can be fulfilled completely, and separately, without > invalidating each other. Those who claim otherwise need to point to a > specific requirement from one of the licenses that would prevent it > from being used. They cannot, because such a point does not > exist. Ascii pictures. Hearsay. Confusion regarding existing practice > or existing thoughts on the matter. No single point of conflict has > been raised. The GPL does not state that "GPL software may not derive > from software that has an advertising clause." Considering that this > is the primary point raised by people, it is ironic that the GPL has > no such restriction. > > Be honest about it. *You* don't like the advertising clause. The GPL > has nothing to say on the issue, and therefore is *NOT* in conflict > with it. > > This thread has re-enforced my conclusion that the GPL is a poor choice > of license for any product I ever work on in the future. A decade ago, > as a teenager, I thought it was cool to put GPL on the software that I > made available to the world. I felt like I was part of something bigger. > Now I just feel disgusted. The GPL is not about freedom. It is about > enforcing a world view on all who use your software. > > Thank you PostgreSQL contributors for choosing the BSD style. I think > it was an excellent choice. > > This is my last contribution to this thread. I've said my piece. Note > that I don't intend to convert all of you. As this issue is primarily > political, people will have a tendency to stay with their own camp, > regardless of what is said. We all have a tendencies to read each others > words, looking only for fault in what is said, purposefully choosing not > to assimilate the other persons contribution. It's called the "I am right > you are wrong" syndrome, and I'm not exempt from it. > > I hope I provided value to this discussion. If not, I apologize. > > Cheers, > mark > > -- > mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________ > . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder > |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | > | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > > One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all > and in the darkness bind them... > > http://mark.mielke.cc/ > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
pgsql-hackers by date: