> Charles.McDevitt@emc.com wrote:
> > The GNU people will never be 100% satisfied by anything you do to psql, other
> than making it GPL.
> > Readline is specifically licensed in a way to try to force this (but many disagree
> with their ability to force this).
> >
>
> The "GNU people" are perfectly content with the license of PostgreSQL.
> They are unhappy with the license terms of OpenSSL, which is fair
> because they are ridiculous. Eric Young and the rest of the
> contributors produced a useful piece of software, and made it considerly
> less valuable to the world due to the ego trip terms:
> http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html -- the worst specific problem
> is the requirement to acknowledge OpenSSL use in advertising of projects
> that use it.
>
> The PostgreSQL community has had similar issues with popular software
> commonly used on top of PostgreSQL, that happened to use a non-standard
> license with unique terms. It would be both hypocritical and incorrect
> to now blame the GNU projects for taking a similar stand on this one.
You are correct... I overreacted, after having run into problems in the past with GPL (vs LGPL) issues.
My apologies to all for adding stupid distracting comments to this thread.
It would be wonderful if the OpenSSL people would compromise on this, but I suppose that isn't possible.
I'd love to see libedit get better, and would like to see that solution, because OpenSSL's FIPS compliance really helps
withFederal customers, but I realize that involves a lot of effort.
I hope if the PostgreSQL project goes down the path of switching to GnuTLS, OpenSSL remains an option (for the server
side).
