Re: Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module

-----Original Message-----
From: "Tyler MacDonald"<tyler(at)yi(dot)org>
Sent: 10/04/06 21:08:29
To: "Chris Travers"<chris(at)verkiel(dot)metatrontech(dot)com>, "Tom Lane"<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Chris Travers"<chris(at)verkiel(dot)metatrontech(dot)com>, "Chris Travers"<chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com>, "Scott Marlowe"<smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, "Douglas McNaught"<doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>, "lmyho"<lm_yho(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql general"<pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module

> 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 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

-----Unmodified Original Message-----
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> 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 of the OS" clause, Debian as a distributor of
> both, can't.

Thanks Martijn! I've forwarded that URL to the freeradius people.

> BTW, here[1] states the issue is that one of the developers you'd have
> to convince is Eric Young, who went off to work on a competitor to
> OpenSSL. He's unlikely to make it any easier for people to use OpenSSL.
>
> [1] http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-license/2002/03/0161.html

Yup. I've tried to get an email out to him... Tim Hudson also works
with RSA and I've sent a comment to his blog and an email to the openssl
list, but I can't find any current email address for Eric himself.

> Not, sure. The postgresql module is part of the freeradius package. You
> could only relicence it if all the writers of code in that module
> (including code copied from other modules) agree. I doubt this would be
> any less difficult.

I think it will be less difficult, only because the instigators of
the licensing there are available for comment. :-)

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 license needs to change, or we
need to support an alternative secure socket api like GnuTLS.

GnuTLS is LGPL, which isn't quite as liberal as postgresql's
license, but should still be ubiqutous enough to be worthwhile.

Cheers,
Tyler

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> 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 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.

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) have that choice available.

Cheers,
Tyler

On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 02:58:50PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> 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 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.
>
> 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) have that choice available.

Well, for a program in alpha stage it's working quite well. Just
examining the Debian archives shows GnuTLS used by a few hundred
packages, including apparently everything in Gnome (directly or
indirectly).

It would be worth looking into, to lay this case to rest, finally...

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.

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

Not to mention that the API consists of functions prefixed by "GNUTLS_"
(or something similar). GnuTLS is something I always try to prevent to
install, there's a very good alternative called openssl :P

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
licensing problem is apparently a restriction in GPL. Fix that, problem
solved.

Regards,
--
Alban Hertroys
alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl

magproductions b.v.

T: ++31(0)534346874
F: ++31(0)534346876
M:
I: www.magproductions.nl
A: Postbus 416
7500 AK Enschede

// Integrate Your World //