Hi Rob, While Netty TCNative has upgraded to Openssl 3, there are still references to BoringSSL [1]. Do you know if TCNative still uses BoringSSL as well in this version?
Best regards, Martijn [1] https://github.com/netty/netty-tcnative/blob/netty-tcnative-parent-2.0.62.Final/license/LICENSE.boringssl.txt On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 3:54 AM Robert Young <robertyoun...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I see in flink-shaded main we depend > on <netty.tcnative.version>2.0.62.Final</netty.tcnative.version> and we > currently avoid building/distributing flink-shaded-netty-tcnative-static > due to legal issues > > > This module is excluded by default since it is not compliant with the > apache license. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-393 > > netty-tcnative 2.0.62.Final upgraded openssl to 3.1.2 [1] > > Openssl 3 introduced a license change to apache 2 [2] so I wondered if it's > now okay to build/deploy flink-shaded-netty-tcnative-static? Then we could > avoid having to build the static lib in the flink core end-to-end tests [3] > and include it in the flink binary distribution for users to access. > > 1. > > https://github.com/netty/netty-tcnative/blob/d70e48a56c4aaa8df86a7de2e275e51aa0cc43a1/pom.xml#L97 > 2. https://www.openssl.org/docs/man3.0/man7/migration_guide.html > 3. > > https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/4e86d98437480377973f66600c2d5bda907589d6/flink-end-to-end-tests/test-scripts/common_ssl.sh#L82 > > Thanks, > Rob Young >
