On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 12:03 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Richard A Nelson <cowboy@debian.org> writes:
[...]
> > For interoperability, OpenSSL is much better, but there is apparently
> > still some amount of work to be done on license exemptions (how much?),
> > and even if that were done, it'd take a bit of work to switch everything
> > back to it ... if there was concensus
>
> The primary problem with using OpenSSL with OpenLDAP is NSS and PAM
> modules, which pull the libraries into just about any GPL'd (or
> other-licensed) package in the distribution in one way or another.
[...]
Applications that use NSS/PAM, and individual NSS/PAM modules, are
useful without the other and it is a matter of user configuration
whether they are used together at all. The OpenLDAP modules are not
used by default. So I don't see that copyleft licences of applications
using NSS/PAM can possibly extend to them.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.
- John Lehman, Secretary of the US Navy 1981-1987
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part