On Saturday, June 27, 2020, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Christoph Berg <m...@debian.org> writes: > > Re: Ranier Vilela > >> Isn't LIbreSSL a better alternative? > > > I don't know. > > It should work all right --- it's the default ssl library on OpenBSD > and some other platforms, so we have some buildfarm coverage for it. > (AFAICT, none of the OpenBSD machines are running the ssl test, but > I tried that just now on OpenBSD 6.4 and it passed.) > > However, I'm not exactly convinced that using LibreSSL gets you out > of the license compatibility bind. LibreSSL is a fork of OpenSSL, > and IIUC a fairly hostile fork at that, so how did they get permission > to remove OpenSSL's problematic license clauses? Did they remove them > at all? A quick look at the header files on my OpenBSD installation > shows a whole lot of ancient copyright text.
As I understand Libressl objective is not to change the license of existing code but to deprecate features they don't want in it. They also include in Libressl a new libtls which is ISC licensed, but it's another history > regards, tom lane > > >
