On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 06:14:21PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Em sáb., 27 de jun. de 2020 às 16:40, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
> escreveu:
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:22:51PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > Em sáb., 27 de jun. de 2020 às 09:50, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
> > escreveu:
> >
> > Re: Peter Eisentraut
> > > What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
> >
> > Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
> >
> > I'm curious, how do you intend to solve a linking problem with
> > OpenSSL-vs-GPL-readline, with another GPL product?
>
> I assume you can use wolfSSL as long as the result is GPL, which is the
> same requirement libreadline causes for Postgres, particularly if
> Postgres is statically linked to libreadline.
>
> I don't want to divert the focus from the theread, but this subject has a
> controversial potential, in my opinion.
> I participated in a speech on another list, where I make contributions (IUP
> library: https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/).
> Where a user, upon discovering that two sub-libraries, were GPL licenses,
> caused an uproar, bringing the speech to Mr.Stallman himself.
> In short, the best thing for the project will be to remove the two GPL
> sub-libraries.
We aleady try to do that by trying to use BSD-licensed libedit if
installed:
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/tree/master/lib/libedit
https://certif.com/spec_print/readline.html
I would love to see libedit fully functional so we don't need to rely on
libreadline anymore, but I seem to remember there are a few libreadline
features that libedit doesn't implement, so we use libreadline if it is
already installed. (I am still not clear if dynamic linking is a GPL
violation.)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee