On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> I agree w/ the other responses to this, in particular from Stark, but I
> just wanted to point out that we're much more likely to come across
> other GPL-licensed things that we want to support linking against (and
> who might link against us..) than OpenSSL-type-licensed things..
Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
acceptable so things like EDB's products, or Greenplums, or for that
matter Pokertracker's all include other proprietary source that of
course has restrictive licenses ("OpenSSL-type-licensed" except even
*more* restrictive).
--
greg
