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 <br...@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 <m...@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 <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee