* 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.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to