Re: TODO: GNU TLS

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)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