* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Currently, Tom Lane does not like how invasive the patch is. > > If GNUTLS really wants to take market share from OpenSSL, why don't they > provide a more nearly compatible API? I don't see why we should have
They do but it's GPL. Not to mention that the OpenSSL API isn't exactly a shining star in the software world... I really don't feel this has got anything to do with 'market share' and I'm not advocating Postgres drop support for OpenSSL. I disagree that the only way Postgres should support multiple libraries for a given component is if they provide the same API- we wouldn't have much in the way of authentication options if that was really the case. The patch appears large because of things being moved around and not becuase it is tremendously invasive. Also, this area hasn't required a lot of maintenance in the past and I doubt adding GNUTLS support would change that. > to jump through so many hoops in order to satify someone else's license > fetish. (And it is a fetish, because only a compulsively narrow-minded > reading of the licenses yields the conclusion that there's a problem.) While I appriciate that RH isn't concerned I don't feel their interpretation is the only possible one which could come out of a court case. Not to mention that just finding out would be expensive in its own right. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature