Re: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support

On Saturday, June 27, 2020, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> writes:
> > Re: Ranier Vilela
> >> Isn't LIbreSSL a better alternative?
>
> > I don't know.
>
> It should work all right --- it's the default ssl library on OpenBSD
> and some other platforms, so we have some buildfarm coverage for it.
> (AFAICT, none of the OpenBSD machines are running the ssl test, but
> I tried that just now on OpenBSD 6.4 and it passed.)
>
> However, I'm not exactly convinced that using LibreSSL gets you out
> of the license compatibility bind. LibreSSL is a fork of OpenSSL,
> and IIUC a fairly hostile fork at that, so how did they get permission
> to remove OpenSSL's problematic license clauses? Did they remove them
> at all? A quick look at the header files on my OpenBSD installation
> shows a whole lot of ancient copyright text.

As I understand Libressl objective is not to change the license of existing
code but to deprecate features they don't want in it.

They also include in Libressl a new libtls which is ISC licensed, but it's
another history

> regards, tom lane
>
>
>