-Original Message-
From: "Tom Lane"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 22/04/06 18:23:58
To: "Dave Page"
Cc: "kleptog@svana.org",
"pgsql-general@postgresql.org"
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module
> Dave, were
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:23:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" writes:
> > Err, what? It uses PQsocket & PQgetssl, both of which are official,
> > supported functions that may be being used by countless other apps for
> > all we know.
>
> Dave, weren't you paying attention to the recent
"Dave Page" writes:
> From: "Martijn van Oosterhout"
>> Well, you need to be careful here. Just installing GnuTLS support as is
>> will break the latest release of psqlODBC, because they do things with
>> libpq that it wasn't really designed for.
> Err, what? It uses PQsocket & PQgetssl, both of
-Original Message-
From: "Martijn van Oosterhout"
Sent: 22/04/06 16:44:33
To: "Dave Page"
Cc: "pgsql-general@postgresql.org"
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module
> I don't disagree that this is proper use of the
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 04:30:21PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> > Well, you need to be careful here. Just installing GnuTLS support as is
> > will break the latest release of psqlODBC, because they do things with
> > libpq that it wasn't really designed for.
>
> Err, what? It uses PQsocket & PQgetss
-Original Message-
From: "Martijn van Oosterhout"
Sent: 22/04/06 15:11:38
To: "pgsql-general@postgresql.org"
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module
> Well, you need to be careful here. Just installing GnuTLS support as is
> wil
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 03:47:51PM +0200, Nicolas Baradakis wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > Before someone runs off to consider this, I've already done it. My
> > preliminary patch is here:
> >
> > http://svana.org/kleptog/temp/gnutls.patch
>
> I'm speechless. Everything is mostly done
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:10:34AM +0200, Nicolas Baradakis wrote:
> > As PostgreSQL is participating in Google Summer of Code 2006, perhaps
> > the GnuTLS support could be a student's project.
>
> Before someone runs off to consider this, I've already done it. My
>
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:10:34AM +0200, Nicolas Baradakis wrote:
> Tyler MacDonald wrote:
>
> > I see this continuining to be a problem for the postgresql community
> > given how many GPLed projects use libpq. freeradius might be fixable with a
> > change in their license, but for postgresql
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> I see this continuining to be a problem for the postgresql community
> given how many GPLed projects use libpq. freeradius might be fixable with a
> change in their license, but for postgresql to continue to be reasonably
> usable by GPLed projects, either OpenSSL's
ECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module
>
> The GNU people write a an SSL library and you claim that
> people are being forced to use it. Perhaps you forgot about
> the Mozilla NSS library which
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:02:33PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> > The only proper fix for this licensing issue IMHO is to fix
> > GPL, not to kludge in some GPL compliant library. The issue
> > at hand obviously is licensing related, the software is not
> > the problem. And the cause of the licensi
ROTECTED]; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module
>
>
> The only proper fix for this licensing issue IMHO is to fix
> GPL, not to kludge in some GPL compliant library. The issue
> at hand obviously is licensing related, the sof
Dave Page wrote:
The note on the fsf directory (http://directory.fsf.org/gnutls.html) is a
little off-putting:
"The program is currently in development and at an alpha stage."
Not to mention that from what I can see in a brief Google the Windows support
is somewhat rudimentary.
Regards, Dave
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 02:58:50PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > > GnuTLS is LGPL, which isn't quite as liberal as postgresql's
> > > license, but should still be ubiqutous enough to be worthwhile.
> >
> > The note on the fsf directory (http://directory.fsf.org/gnutls.htm
sql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module
>
>
> I don't think we should drop openssl support... just
> include gnutls support so that OS vendors that want to be
> able to link their libpq against GPL software (like debian
Dave Page wrote:
> > GnuTLS is LGPL, which isn't quite as liberal as postgresql's
> > license, but should still be ubiqutous enough to be worthwhile.
>
> The note on the fsf directory (http://directory.fsf.org/gnutls.html) is a
> little off-putting:
>
> "The program is currently in developm
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Scott
Marlowe"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Douglas McNaught"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"lmyho"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "pgsql general"
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module
> GnuTLS is LGPL,
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Well, it's a Debian problem that possibly applies to Linux distrubutors
> in general. Here is a good write up:
>
> http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html
>
> The issue is that while anybody else can take advantage of the
> "components usually part o
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 02:48:33PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> Tyler MacDonald wrote:
>
> >Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > I'd call that the short term solution, with the long term solution
> >being to finally convince the right people to remove that clause from
> >OpenSSL's license.
> >
Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd call that the short term solution, with the long term solution
> >being to finally convince the right people to remove that clause from
> >OpenSSL's license.
> As I have said before, I think it is Debian's problem at least from the
> perspectiv
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
I'd call that the short term solution, with the long term solution
being to finally convince the right people to remove that clause from
OpenSSL's license.
As I have said before, I think it is Debian's problem at least f
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> To save you some time: this has been rehashed on the OpenSSL lists and
> the conclusion is basically:
>
> 1. It's not a problem, it's the GPLs problem
> 2. It doesn't appear they can change the licence for some reason
>
> We are not the first people to run into th
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 10:26:35AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Well, Alan DeKok, the creator of freeradius, has said that he has no
> problem altering the license, but other contributors to the project have
> raised some concerns. I guess we'll just wait and see how it all pans out.
> One
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GPL-licensed software depending on a BSD-licensed package *isn't* a
> problem. If we didn't link Postgres w/ OpenSSL this wouldn't be any
> issue at all. If the freeradius authors explicitly say they don't have
> a problem linking against a BSD-with-adve
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The courts are pretty likely to strongly consider the copyright holder's
> > opinion of the license when deciding how to interpret it.
>
> It's worth pointing out here that
>
> 1. Debian is not the copyright hol
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The courts are pretty likely to strongly consider the copyright holder's
> opinion of the license when deciding how to interpret it.
It's worth pointing out here that
1. Debian is not the copyright holder.
2. The copyright holders, in this case the aut
* Chris Travers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >It says, in no
> >uncertain terms, that GPL programs must come with complete source of
> >themselves and all dependancies under terms compatible with the GPL.
> >The advertising clause in OpenSSL is not acceptable.
> >
> >
> No it doesn't. Otherwise y
As someone who licenses a lot of my code under the GPL, I feel inclined
to correct you. Please note that IANAL.
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 04:16:18PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
By this interpretation, coding a connector against UNIX ODBC would be
OK, but the us
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Or are they selectively enforcing this
> >> policy against PG?
>
> > It's enforced whenever we discover it, really...
>
> I am strongly tempted to pull Debian's chain by pointing out that
> libjpeg has an adver
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 04:16:18PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> By this interpretation, coding a connector against UNIX ODBC would be
> OK, but the user would be forbidden to use ODBC drivers that link
> against OpenSSL. I cannot therefore imagine a circumstance where the
> parent GPL applicat
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> I don't feel it's a questionable reading of the GPL at all. In fact,
> > >> it's pretty clear and I'm about 99% sure the FSF has commented on this
> > >> as well. It's true that it's unlikely anyone would actually sue Debian
> > >> over it but that
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 19:31, Douglas McNaught wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I don't feel it's a questionable reading of the GPL at all. In fact,
> >> it's pretty clear and I'm about 99% sure the FSF has commented on this
> >> as well. It's true that it's unlikely anyo
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't feel it's a questionable reading of the GPL at all. In fact,
>> it's pretty clear and I'm about 99% sure the FSF has commented on this
>> as well. It's true that it's unlikely anyone would actually sue Debian
>> over it but that doesn't someho
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 19:13, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> Or are they selectively enforcing this
> > >> policy against PG?
> >
> > > It's enforced whenever we discover it, really...
> >
> > I am strongly tempted
"Leif B. Kristensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 08 April 2006 01:21, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
>>Debian a niche distribution? I'd hardly call the defacto standard
>>GNU Linux distribution a "niche"...
>
> Surely, Debian is "niche". Why else should there be a need for
> distributions l
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Or are they selectively enforcing this
> >> policy against PG?
>
> > It's enforced whenever we discover it, really...
>
> I am strongly tempted to pull Debian's chain by pointing out that
> libjpeg has an adver
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Or are they selectively enforcing this
>> policy against PG?
> It's enforced whenever we discover it, really...
I am strongly tempted to pull Debian's chain by pointing out that
libjpeg has an advertising clause (a much weaker one than openssl's,
but n
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > OK, I'm kind of confused about how the legal red tape works here.
> > Debian packages all sorts of GPL code, and both openssl and postgres are
> > released under more liberal licenses. About the only legal i
On Saturday 08 April 2006 01:21, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
>Debian a niche distribution? I'd hardly call the defacto standard
>GNU Linux distribution a "niche"...
Surely, Debian is "niche". Why else should there be a need for
distributions like Gentoo?
I once tried to run Debian, and asked for help
Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My own opinion is this: The Debian crowd are often technical enough
> they can build whatever they want from source. Debian is a niche
> distribution and not something we should spend too much time worrying
> about whether our software can be indirect
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But the way Douglas' message read, it was only GPL packages that should
be affected, and we're not GPL. Or did I or Douglas misunderstand the
situation?
It's freeradius that's GPL. Then we break GPL rules by impo
Alan DeKok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It appears that several other GPL apps have added a special clause
> > to their license that allows them to be linked against OpenSSL.
> >
> > Could this be done for freeradius/freeradius-postgresql as well?
>
> I have no objection to that.
>
> D
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > GPL partisans feel that BSD-with-advertising-clause is not compatible
> > with the GPL. I think the sticking point here is that openssl is using
> > an advertising clause.
>
> But the way Douglas' message read, it was only GPL packages that should
> be
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 17:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I thought from Douglas' message, it appeared BSD packages didn't need
> > such a clause...
>
> GPL partisans feel that BSD-with-advertising-clause is not compatible
> with the GPL. I think the sticking po
Greetings FreeRadius people,
This discussion started on the postgresql's "pgsql-general" mailing
list. The problem here is that the freeradius-postgresql package needs to
link against libpgsql, which means that it may be indirectly linked against
openssl. There is a conflict between OpenSS
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought from Douglas' message, it appeared BSD packages didn't need
> such a clause...
GPL partisans feel that BSD-with-advertising-clause is not compatible
with the GPL. I think the sticking point here is that openssl is using
an advertising clause.
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 17:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Douglas McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think so. I got curious and looked at what's on my Ubuntu
> > system: Courier IMAP is GPL with an additional clause that explicitly
> > allows linking with OpenSSL; Postfix has an Apache-ish li
Douglas McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think so. I got curious and looked at what's on my Ubuntu
> system: Courier IMAP is GPL with an additional clause that explicitly
> allows linking with OpenSSL; Postfix has an Apache-ish license; Exim
> is GPL and also explicitly allows linki
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> OK, I'm kind of confused about how the legal red tape works here.
>> Debian packages all sorts of GPL code, and both openssl and postgres are
>> released under more liberal licenses. About the only legal iss
Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, I'm kind of confused about how the legal red tape works here.
> Debian packages all sorts of GPL code, and both openssl and postgres are
> released under more liberal licenses. About the only legal issue I could see
> is the legalities surroun
lmyho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh right, they're claiming that they can't distribute freeradius using
> > postgresql because postgresql links to OpenSSL. freeradius is GPL which
> > makes for an incompatabilty. Not something PostgreSQL is responsible
> > for, given Debian could compile withou
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:40:03PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> This looks like part of the debate:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/11/msg00254.html
>
> I dont know if this applies to openssl though...
Oh right, they're claiming that they can't distribute freer
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:39:44PM -0700, lmyho wrote:
> > Sounds terribly unlikely, PostgreSQLs licence doesn't conflict with any
> > use anywhere. Can you provide a reference?
> >
>
> I wish things are not like this too! so I won't have to go through so much
> trouble!
> But that's what happe
Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is the ref was given:
>> The old / original BSD license is not compatible.
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>>
>> Anyway to change this?? So debian users can easily use postgresql and
>> freeradius
>> together...
lmyho wrote:
After desperately checking, we were told that debian doesn't distribute the
binary
module of freeradius for postgresql because of the incompatible license of these
two
apps! However we can build the debian pkg from the source ourself if we need.
So
Sounds terribly unlikely
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:27:36AM -0700, lmyho wrote:
> > After desperately checking, we were told that debian doesn't distribute the
> > binary
> > module of freeradius for postgresql because of the incompatible license of
> > these two
> > apps! However we can
> > After desperately checking, we were told that debian doesn't distribute the
> binary
> > module of freeradius for postgresql because of the incompatible license of
> > these
> two
> > apps! However we can build the debian pkg from the source ourself if we
> > need.
> So
>
> Sounds terribly
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:27:36AM -0700, lmyho wrote:
> After desperately checking, we were told that debian doesn't distribute the
> binary
> module of freeradius for postgresql because of the incompatible license of
> these two
> apps! However we can build the debian pkg from the source oursel
Hello All,
We have a project which is built on postgresql and freeradius on debian system.
I
have installed postgresql-8.1 on the Debian system, and lately freeradius-1.1.0
also. Things seems ok, but when we started to test, we found that the postgresql
module of freeradius is missing in the debi
60 matches
Mail list logo
