* David Boreham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> >erm, I'm not really sure what you're saying here but perhaps I can
> >clarify:  I wasn't suggesting to add any serious amount of source code
> >to PostgreSQL - NSS would be used just as OpenSSL is today, and as 
> >GNUTLS support was proposed, a seperate library which is distributed 
> >independently of PostgreSQL but can be compiled against.  I don't know
> >
> I suspect that Andrew was concerned about the dependency NSS has on NSPR.

Ah, this does sound rather ugly and not something we'd want.  The
particular library doesn't make a whole heck of alot of difference to me
provided it has the general functionality necessary and a compatible
license (where 'compatible' in this case really means 'Debian feels it
is compatible with the GPL').  It'd be wonderful if OpenSSL's license
was the same license PostgreSQL has.  Honestly, we'd be happy to stop
pissing off both those who license their code under the GPL (by asking
for exceptions for OpenSSL) and core library maintainers (by asking for
GNUTLS support, though in general I like to have options).



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to