Re: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda
Subject Re: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support
Date
Msg-id CAPD=2NhHbH2dDE+LZRfrfTwRvMgfC8sfQ7QYNfTrctZhTaS-aw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Saturday, June 27, 2020, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> writes:
> Re: Ranier Vilela
>> Isn't LIbreSSL a better alternative?

> I don't know.

It should work all right --- it's the default ssl library on OpenBSD
and some other platforms, so we have some buildfarm coverage for it.
(AFAICT, none of the OpenBSD machines are running the ssl test, but
I tried that just now on OpenBSD 6.4 and it passed.)

However, I'm not exactly convinced that using LibreSSL gets you out
of the license compatibility bind.  LibreSSL is a fork of OpenSSL,
and IIUC a fairly hostile fork at that, so how did they get permission
to remove OpenSSL's problematic license clauses?  Did they remove them
at all?  A quick look at the header files on my OpenBSD installation
shows a whole lot of ancient copyright text.

As I understand Libressl objective is not to change the license of existing code but to deprecate features they don't want in it.

They also include in Libressl a new libtls which is ISC licensed, but it's another history



                        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_bsd_indent compiles bytecode
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: update substring pattern matching syntax