On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 03:05:04PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > Sure, code can be rewritten to use gnutls natively. But I don't > > understand why anyone would consider this a useful expenditure of > > developer resources when the necessary OpenSSL compat glue could simply > > be made available under the LGPL. > I suppose it depends on whose resources are being wasted. Certainly the > GNU project's resources aren't. Perhaps not directly. Who knows how many people who would otherwise be spending time on GPL software will instead be stuck porting free-but-GPL-incompatible software to use GNU TLS? I find that hard to justify. > FWIW, porting to the native API didn't turn out to be difficult. If the > GNU TLS project doesn't bend on the licensing issue, it might behoove us > to write a Porting HOWTO, or some such. I would appreciate seeing such a document. It seems GPL-compatibilty with SSL-enabled postgres libs will be an issue soon for me because of freeradius. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpw3FfljpfLV.pgp
Description: PGP signature