Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: TODO: GNU TLS

From: David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS
Date: 2007-01-02 19:02:40
Message-ID: 459AAC50.3030405@boreham.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan wrote:

> I suspect most postgres developers and companies would like to keep 
> things as BSDish as possible. 

Right, hence OpenSSL would be the obvious best choice.
In respect of licencing however, NSS is no 'worse' than GNU TLS
because it may be distributed under the GPL and LGPL.



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-01-02 19:05:47
Subject: Re: Rare corruption of pg_class index
Previous:From: Lukas Kahwe SmithDate: 2007-01-02 19:01:57
Subject: Re: TODO: Add a GUC to control whether BEGIN inside

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group