Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Or are they selectively enforcing this
>> policy against PG?
> It's enforced whenever we discover it, really...
I am strongly tempted to pull Debian's chain by pointing out that
libjpeg has an advertising clause (a much weaker one than openssl's,
but nonetheless it wants you to acknowledge you used it) and demanding
they rebuild all their GPL'd desktop apps without JPEG support forthwith.
I'm with Chris Travers on this: it's a highly questionable reading
of the GPL, and I don't see why we should have to jump through extra
hoops (like make-work porting efforts) to satisfy debian-legal. It's
especially stupid because this is GPL code depending on BSD code, not
vice versa.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
