Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> So, Debian is distributing an application (exim4 w/ libpq & libssl)
> which includes GPL code (exim4) combined with code under another license
> (BSD w/ advertising clause) which *adds additional restrictions* (the
> advertising clause) over those in the GPL, which is against the terms of
> the GPL.
Stephen, let me explain *exactly* why I think this is horsepucky.
libjpeg, my other major open-source project, has always been shipped
under a BSD-ish license that includes an "advertising" clause; I quote:
: (2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying
: documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of
: the Independent JPEG Group".
Curiously, every single GPL-license web browser in the world uses
libjpeg. Until I see a widespread willingness to remove JPEG support in
GPL-licensed software, and/or somebody providing a pure-GPL replacement
for libjpeg, I am not going to take this argument seriously. There is
exactly zero meaningful difference between the libjpeg license terms and
the OpenSSL terms, but where is the pushback on libjpeg? I have not
seen any, in all the years I worked on that project.
(At one point RMS did make a half-hearted attempt to get me to relicense
libjpeg as GPL, but I have never seen any indication whatsoever that
anyone else cared.)
regards, tom lane
