| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Felix Lechner <felix(dot)lechner(at)lease-up(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support |
| Date: | 2020-06-27 21:39:01 |
| Message-ID: | 153514.1593293941@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> writes:
> Re: Ranier Vilela
>> Isn't LIbreSSL a better alternative?
> I don't know.
It should work all right --- it's the default ssl library on OpenBSD
and some other platforms, so we have some buildfarm coverage for it.
(AFAICT, none of the OpenBSD machines are running the ssl test, but
I tried that just now on OpenBSD 6.4 and it passed.)
However, I'm not exactly convinced that using LibreSSL gets you out
of the license compatibility bind. LibreSSL is a fork of OpenSSL,
and IIUC a fairly hostile fork at that, so how did they get permission
to remove OpenSSL's problematic license clauses? Did they remove them
at all? A quick look at the header files on my OpenBSD installation
shows a whole lot of ancient copyright text.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-06-27 21:46:17 | Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-06-27 21:30:10 | Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support |