Am Dienstag, 30. Mai 2006 05:21 schrieb Tom Lane:
FWIW, Red Hat's legal department thinks that the FSF has overreached
in claiming that the GPL is incompatible with OpenSSL's license. Which
is why Red Hat isn't worrying about GPL apps that use OpenSSL, of which
there are quite a few ...
Here
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, Red Hat's legal department thinks that the FSF has overreached
in claiming that the GPL is incompatible with OpenSSL's license. Which
is why Red Hat isn't worrying about GPL apps that use OpenSSL, of which
there are quite a few ...
I'm
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
I think we are ready to move forward with this. Please supply an
updated patch ready for application. Thanks.
I'm still not very happy with the size/invasiveness of that patch.
Nor am I.
FWIW, Red Hat's legal department
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 11:21:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
I think we are ready to move forward with this. Please supply an
updated patch ready for application. Thanks.
I'm still not very happy with the size/invasiveness of that patch.
I think
Forgot the patch...
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 01:01:38PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
snip
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
Index: configure
Index: configure.in
Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, Red Hat's legal department thinks that the FSF has overreached
in claiming that the GPL is incompatible with OpenSSL's license. Which
is why Red Hat isn't worrying about GPL apps that use OpenSSL, of which
there are quite a few ...
I'm quite happy if we hang onto Red
I think we are ready to move forward with this. Please supply an
updated patch ready for application. Thanks.
---
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
This patch does the following:
- Provide
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
I think we are ready to move forward with this. Please supply an
updated patch ready for application. Thanks.
I'm still not very happy with the size/invasiveness of that patch.
FWIW, Red Hat's legal department thinks that the FSF has overreached
This is a pretty massive patch, but I understand the license concerns.
Is this what we want to do?
FYI, yesterday's SSL CRL additions need to be added to this patch.
---
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 01:11:26PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
This is a pretty massive patch, but I understand the license concerns.
Is this what we want to do?
More than half the patch is simply moving the OpenSSL related stuff
from fe/be-secure.c to fe/be-secure-openssl.c. If you create
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 01:11:26PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
This is a pretty massive patch, but I understand the license concerns.
Is this what we want to do?
More than half the patch is simply moving the OpenSSL related
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 02:47:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
If you like I can split it into two patches, one patch splits the openssl
stuff out of the main files and a second which adds gnutls support.
Yes, I understood that, but we now have duplicate files
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 02:47:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
If you like I can split it into two patches, one patch splits the openssl
stuff out of the main files and a second which adds gnutls
13 matches
Mail list logo
