Em sáb., 27 de jun. de 2020 às 18:23, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> escreveu:
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:
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.)
Personally, the dynamic link does not hurt the GPL. But some people, do not think so, it was also unclear what Mr Stallman thinks of the subject (dynamic link).