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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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