Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > FWIW, Red Hat's legal department thinks that the FSF has "overreached"
> > in claiming that the GPL is incompatible with OpenSSL's license. Which
> > is why Red Hat isn't worrying about GPL apps that use OpenSSL, of which
> > there are quite a few ...
> I'm quite happy if we hang onto Red Hat's coat tails on this one.
> Do we use any GPL libraries other than libreadline? It would be nice to
> be able to get out of this game altogether - getting libedit up to
> scratch and portable would be very nice, and I know for a fact that
> commercial postgres vendors would welcome such a development.
Agreed, but FYI GnuTLS is LGPL, not GPL.
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Marko Kreen||Date: 2006-05-31 10:08:41|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Magic block for modules|
|Previous:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2006-05-31 06:44:16|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Magic block for modules|