| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Chris Travers <chris(at)verkiel(dot)metatrontech(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com>, Tyler MacDonald <tyler(at)yi(dot)org>, Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>, lmyho <lm_yho(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module |
| Date: | 2006-04-09 02:57:26 |
| Message-ID: | 2962.1144551446@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> The courts are pretty likely to strongly consider the copyright holder's
> opinion of the license when deciding how to interpret it.
It's worth pointing out here that
1. Debian is not the copyright holder.
2. The copyright holders, in this case the authors of freeradius, saw
no problem with it. They'd hardly have written GPL-licensed software
that depends on a BSD-licensed package if they did, because the strict
intepretation says that their code is undistributable, and obviously
they intend to distribute it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-04-09 03:33:27 | Re: Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module |
| Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-04-09 02:47:04 | Re: LW Boston |