* David Boreham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > >erm, I'm not really sure what you're saying here but perhaps I can > >clarify: I wasn't suggesting to add any serious amount of source code > >to PostgreSQL - NSS would be used just as OpenSSL is today, and as > >GNUTLS support was proposed, a seperate library which is distributed > >independently of PostgreSQL but can be compiled against. I don't know > > > I suspect that Andrew was concerned about the dependency NSS has on NSPR. [...]
Ah, this does sound rather ugly and not something we'd want. The particular library doesn't make a whole heck of alot of difference to me provided it has the general functionality necessary and a compatible license (where 'compatible' in this case really means 'Debian feels it is compatible with the GPL'). It'd be wonderful if OpenSSL's license was the same license PostgreSQL has. Honestly, we'd be happy to stop pissing off both those who license their code under the GPL (by asking for exceptions for OpenSSL) and core library maintainers (by asking for GNUTLS support, though in general I like to have options). Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature