[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Freeradius and Debian

On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 15:14, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:34:02PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is true for the Postgres libraries, because the
> > postgres libraries can function fine without ssl support and no ssl
> > code is linked into your application.
> > Basically the library linking argument is a functionality argument and
> > I think part of the construction may fail in this case.  
> I would argue that the only situation where this line of reasoning holds
> true is where re-linking the underlying library so that it doesn't
> depend on openssl is not objectionable.  If it /is/ objectionable, then
> clearly there is some value derived from being able to distribute the
> application together with the "tainted" version of the library, even if
> only in the form of administrative convenience; and I believe it is
> therefore the goal of the GPL to prevent distribution of such
> combinations in all cases.
> IOW, if it's really such a minor issue, it should be no trouble to
> distribute the postgres libs without ssl support and make sure
> freeradius doesn't link against an ssl-enabled version at runtime.  If
> someone balks at doing this, then clearly it wasn't so minor to begin
> with, and can't be ignored wrt the GPL.

Just a thought ... how difficult would it be to port the postgres ssl
support to link to OpenSSL?  Although I am not familiar with the details
of the two APIs I would suspect that they are pretty similar and it
would alleviate the licensing problem.

Best regards,


There is no problem that cannot be resolved by the appropriate
application of high explosives.

Public key available at: http://gnv.us.ks.cryptnet.net/,
Key ID: A015B18D, or finger ninewands@ninewands.dyndns.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: