Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Felix Lechner <felix(dot)lechner(at)lease-up(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support
Date: 2020-06-27 15:10:35
Message-ID: 20200627151035.GB16644@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:56:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 02:50:27PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> >> Re: Peter Eisentraut
> >>> What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
>
> >> Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
>
> > Uh, wolfSSL is GPL2:
> > https://www.wolfssl.com/license/
>
> Readline is GPLv3+ (according to Red Hat's labeling of that package
> anyway, didn't check the source). So they'd be compatible, while
> openssl's license is nominally incompatible with GPL. As I recall,
> Debian jumps through some silly hoops to pretend that they're not
> using openssl and readline at the same time with Postgres, so I
> can definitely understand Christoph's interest in an alternative.
>
> However, judging from the caveats mentioned in the initial message,
> my inclination would be to wait awhile for wolfSSL to mature.

Also, wolfSSL is developed by a company and dual GPL/commerical
licenses, so it seems like a mismatch to me.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-06-27 15:16:26 Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-06-27 14:56:46 Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support