|
Home > Archive > PostgreSQL Discussion > April 2006 > Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module
|
|
|
| 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 debian distribution!
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
we did it. But this problem: we got so many...so many warnings during the process
of building the debian packages, tons of the warnings! So although we have the
packages now, we don't know if we can use them with so many so many warnings??!
I want to post some of the warnings here for your advice. Please tell me with such
kind of warnings, will the built packages still usable?? Further more, I am afraid
it is because our system is not purly dev system, so that we got those warnings...
so, if any one of you could possibly help us to get a v1.1.0 postgresql module of
freeradius, I would be so much grateful!! Or, if you can help us to get the newest
v1.1.1 freeradius package set fro debian (include the postgresql module), that will
be great also! I deeply hope to get help from you...
We specifically need this module bacause the codes in postgresql to work with
freeradius have been built, can't imagine all work will be trashed...:(
Please see the warning samples:
radius.c: In function 'make_secret':
radius.c:167: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'librad_MD5Update'
differ in signedness
radius.c: In function 'make_passwd':
radius.c:205: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'librad_MD5Update'
differ in signedness
radius.c: In function 'make_tunnel_passwd'
:
radius.c:294: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'librad_MD5Update'
differ in signedness
rlm_passwd.c: In function 'build_hash_table':
rlm_passwd.c:218: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'hash' differ in
signedness
rlm_passwd.c:232: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'hash' differ in
signedness
rlm_passwd.c: In function 'get_pw_nam':
rlm_passwd.c:299: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'hash' differ in
signedness
rlm_passwd.c: In function 'passwd_authorize':
rlm_passwd.c:536: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c: In function 'cisco_vsa_hack':
rlm_preprocess.c:126: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of
'__builtin_strchr' differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c:144: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c: In function 'rad_mangle':
rlm_preprocess.c:203: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of
'__builtin_strchr' differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c:206: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strcpy'
differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c: In function 'huntgroup_access':
rlm_preprocess.c:375: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strNcpy'
differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c:376: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strlen'
differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c: In function 'add_nas_attr':
rlm_preprocess.c:404: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of
'ip_hostname' differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c:425: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of
'ip_hostname' differ in signedness
rlm_radutmp.c: In function 'radutmp_checksimul'
:
rlm_radutmp.c:658: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
rlm_realm.c: In function 'check_for_realm':
rlm_realm.c:209: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strcpy' differ
in signedness
rlm_sql.c: In function 'sql_groupcmp':
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strlen' differ in
signedness
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of '__builtin_strcmp'
differ in signedness
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of '__builtin_strcmp'
differ in signedness
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strlen' differ in
signedness
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of '__builtin_strcmp'
differ in signedness
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of '__builtin_strcmp'
differ in signedness
rlm_sql.c: In function 'rlm_sql_authorize':
rlm_sql.c:824: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
rlm_sql.c: In function 'rlm_sql_checksimul'
:
rlm_sql.c:1227: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
....
Please advise me if these warnings are serious??
Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!!
Regrads,
leo
____________________
____________________
__________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
| |
| Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-04-06, 8:25 pm |
| 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 ourself if we need. So
Sounds terribly unlikely, PostgreSQLs licence doesn't conflict with any
use anywhere. Can you provide a reference?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.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.
| |
|
|
> binary
> two
> So
>
> 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 happened:-(
This is the ref was given:
The old / original BSD license is not compatible.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license...
Licenses
Anyway to change this?? So debian users can easily use postgresql and freeradius
together...
Thanks!!
____________________
____________________
__________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
| |
| Tyler MacDonald 2006-04-06, 8:25 pm |
| Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:27:36AM -0700, lmyho wrote:
>
> Sounds terribly unlikely, PostgreSQLs licence doesn't conflict with any
> use anywhere. Can you provide a reference?
This looks like part of the debate:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-lega...1/msg00254.html
I dont know if this applies to openssl though...
- Tyler
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
| |
|
| lmyho wrote:
>
>
> I wish things are not like this too! so I won't have to go through so much trouble!
> But that's what happened:-(
>
> This is the ref was given:
> The old / original BSD license is not compatible.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license...
Licenses
>
> Anyway to change this?? So debian users can easily use postgresql and freeradius
> together...
Changing the postgres license isn't going to happen - it has been
debated many many many times in the past (check the archives).
Those warnings come from freeradius, not postgres - so best ask on their
list whether they are serious or not.
--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
| |
| Tom Lane 2006-04-07, 3:36 am |
| Chris <dmagick@gmail.com> writes:
[color=darkred]
> Changing the postgres license isn't going to happen - it has been
> debated many many many times in the past (check the archives).
The PG license is *not* the "old" (advertising-clause) BSD license, but
the new one. What I gathered from the other link that was posted is
that Debian's license concern has nothing to do with the Postgres
license, but rather that they think freeradius and openssl have
incompatible licenses. So it's those two projects that you need to talk
to about this. We are just bystanders.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
| |
| Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-04-07, 3:36 am |
| On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:39:44PM -0700, lmyho wrote:
>
> I wish things are not like this too! so I won't have to go through so much trouble!
> But that's what happened:-(
>
> This is the ref was given:
> The old / original BSD license is not compatible.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license...
Licenses
It's talking about BSD with advertising clause which doesn't apply to
postgresql which has the modified BSD licence. I mean, Debian ships
postgresql fine. Like I said, who said it isn't possible?
Have a ncie day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.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.
| |
| Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-04-07, 7:33 am |
| 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-lega...1/msg00254.html
>
> I dont know if this applies to openssl though...
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 without SSL and the problem would be
solved.
About the only thing we could do is support GnuTLS, but that's about
it.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.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.
| |
| Tyler MacDonald 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| lmyho <lm_yho@yahoo.com> wrote:
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 surrounding the export of openssl, but I thought debian
had already found it's own way around that.
[color=darkred]
I'm in love with debian, so if that's what it takes to get a package
people find useful in there, I'm all for it.
[color=darkred]
> It's just a little complicated for a common user like me. But if it can be
> solved by just going a bit harder way, like to make a debian package by
> our own, that's ok too, as long as we don't have to switch the os to make
> the two work together.
You may not even need to do that;
http://www1.apt-get.org/search.php?...&arch%5B%5D=all
The second search result there includes two sets of
/etc/apt/sources.list lines that both provide freeradius-postgresql.
Cheers,
Tyler
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
| |
| Tom Lane 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| Tyler MacDonald <tyler@yi.org> 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 surrounding the export of openssl, but I thought debian
> had already found it's own way around that.
[ looks in openssl tarball... ] It looks like the openssl license is
essentially old-style BSD (ie, with advertising clause). If Debian is
being anal about refusing to ship old-BSD code linked to GPL code,
there's going to be a whole lot of stuff that doesn't support SSL on
Debian, not only Postgres. Or are they selectively enforcing this
policy against PG?
(FWIW, Red Hat doesn't seem to be worried about this ... you could
always migrate to Fedora ;-))
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
| |
| Douglas McNaught 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Tyler MacDonald <tyler@yi.org> writes:
>
> [ looks in openssl tarball... ] It looks like the openssl license is
> essentially old-style BSD (ie, with advertising clause). If Debian is
> being anal about refusing to ship old-BSD code linked to GPL code,
> there's going to be a whole lot of stuff that doesn't support SSL on
> Debian, not only Postgres. Or are they selectively enforcing this
> policy against PG?
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 linking with OpenSSL; Cyrus IMAP is
BSDish; apache is non-GPL... I can't think offhand of anything that
is GPL and links with OpenSSL without an explicit clause permitting
same.
-Doug
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
| |
| Tom Lane 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org> 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 linking with OpenSSL; Cyrus IMAP is
> BSDish; apache is non-GPL... I can't think offhand of anything that
> is GPL and links with OpenSSL without an explicit clause permitting
> same.
Hm. So can we lobby freeradius to tweak their license similarly?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(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
| |
| Scott Marlowe 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 17:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org> writes:
>
> Hm. So can we lobby freeradius to tweak their license similarly?
I thought from Douglas' message, it appeared BSD packages didn't need
such a clause...
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
| |
| Tom Lane 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| Scott Marlowe < smarlowe@g2switchwor
ks.com> 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.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
| |
| Scott Marlowe 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 17:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe < smarlowe@g2switchwor
ks.com> writes:
>
> 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 affected, and we're not GPL. Or did I or Douglas misunderstand the
situation?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
| |
| Tyler MacDonald 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| Scott Marlowe < smarlowe@g2switchwor
ks.com> 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 importing
OpenSSL. Guilt by association. :)
- 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
| |
| Chris Travers 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| Tyler MacDonald wrote:
>Scott Marlowe < smarlowe@g2switchwor
ks.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's freeradius that's GPL. Then we break GPL rules by importing
>OpenSSL. Guilt by association. :)
>
>
IANAL, but this seems pretty problematic an interpretation of the GPL.
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 application could be considered a dirivative work.
Indeed indirect linking is a pretty common GPL dodge, given NVidia's
approach to drivers.
What really seems to be happening here is that the Debian community
seems to be taking a stand which has little to do with the wording of
the GPL and more of an issue of "we don't like what NVidia is doing wrt
Linux drivers, so we are going to implement a policy that prevents it."
We are, unfortunately, caught in the crossfire.
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 indirectly linked with GPL apps on
their site.
BTW, does this also mean that no GNU Readline is available in the Debian
versions of psql? Or am I missing something?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
| |
| Tyler MacDonald 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| Chris Travers < chris@travelamericas
.com> 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 indirectly linked with GPL apps on
> their site.
Debian a niche distribution? I'd hardly call the defacto standard
GNU Linux distribution a "niche"...
> BTW, does this also mean that no GNU Readline is available in the Debian
> versions of psql? Or am I missing something?
AFAIK psql doesn't have the BSD advertising clause (does it??)...
and that's the piece that's incompatible with the GPL.
Cheers,
Tyler
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
| |
| Leif B. Kristensen 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| 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 on some probably
elementary question on the Debian users list. All I got in the way of
help was "read the f*ing manual". Sure, very helpful indeed. Later, I
installed Gentoo and was positively amazed at the level of help you
would get on the Gentoo-forum. I never looked back to Debian.
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009
http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
| |
| Stephen Frost 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Tyler MacDonald <tyler@yi.org> writes:
>
> [ looks in openssl tarball... ] It looks like the openssl license is
> essentially old-style BSD (ie, with advertising clause). If Debian is
> being anal about refusing to ship old-BSD code linked to GPL code,
> there's going to be a whole lot of stuff that doesn't support SSL on
> Debian, not only Postgres. Or are they selectively enforcing this
> policy against PG?
It's enforced whenever we discover it, really... Alot of applications
are able to be built against GNUTLS which is LGPL and removes the issue
as well. Debian actually worked to port OpenLDAP to GNUTLS to deal with
this problem with all of the (quite a few...) GPL'd LDAP-using
applications we package. I was involved in that effort actually (though
didn't actually do the GNUTLS port, that was mainly done by Steve
Langasek).
I'd like to look into doing this for Postgres, actually... I don't
think it'd hurt for Postgres to support OpenSSL and GNUTLS.
Thanks,
Stephen
| |
| Tom Lane 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
[color=darkred]
> 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 nonetheless it wants you to acknowledge you used it) and demanding
they rebuild all their GPL'd desktop apps without JPEG support forthwith.
I'm with Chris Travers on this: it's a highly questionable reading
of the GPL, and I don't see why we should have to jump through extra
hoops (like make-work porting efforts) to satisfy debian-legal. It's
especially stupid because this is GPL code depending on BSD code, not
vice versa.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql
.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
| |
| Stephen Frost 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
>
>
> 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 nonetheless it wants you to acknowledge you used it) and demanding
> they rebuild all their GPL'd desktop apps without JPEG support forthwith.
Feel free to.
> I'm with Chris Travers on this: it's a highly questionable reading
> of the GPL, and I don't see why we should have to jump through extra
> hoops (like make-work porting efforts) to satisfy debian-legal. It's
> especially stupid because this is GPL code depending on BSD code, not
> vice versa.
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 somehow change what the licenses say.
Additionally, I think supporting GNUTLS would be a good thing for
Postgres to do even without this issue. I'd also like to see it support
SASL and a k5login-style user-controllable mapping.
Thanks,
Stephen
| |
| Douglas McNaught 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| "Leif B. Kristensen" <leif@solumslekt.org> writes:
> On Saturday 08 April 2006 01:21, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
>
> 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 on some probably
> elementary question on the Debian users list. All I got in the way of
> help was "read the f*ing manual". Sure, very helpful indeed. Later, I
> installed Gentoo and was positively amazed at the level of help you
> would get on the Gentoo-forum. I never looked back to Debian.
You can dislike it all you want (and I'm not saying you don't have
reason to), but Debian is *not* "niche". There are a *lot* of servers
out there running it, and it's also the basis for Ubuntu, which by
itself is at least as popular as Gentoo from what I can see.
On the server side, I'd put Debian in the top three along with RH and
SuSE. Even if the mailing lists are unfriendly.
But we're wandering off-topic. :)
-Doug
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
| |
| Scott Marlowe 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 19:13, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>
> Feel free to.
>
>
> 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 somehow change what the licenses say.
> Additionally, I think supporting GNUTLS would be a good thing for
> Postgres to do even without this issue. I'd also like to see it support
> SASL and a k5login-style user-controllable mapping.
So, do GPL have this problem linking against OpenSSL as well?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
| |
| Douglas McNaught 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| Scott Marlowe < smarlowe@g2switchwor
ks.com> writes:
>
> So, do GPL have this problem linking against OpenSSL as well?
Yes, that's why GPL apps like Exim and Courier have explicit license
clauses permitting it.
-Doug
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
| |
| Scott Marlowe 2006-04-07, 8:25 pm |
| On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 19:31, Douglas McNaught wrote:
> Scott Marlowe < smarlowe@g2switchwor
ks.com> writes:
>
>
> Yes, that's why GPL apps like Exim and Courier have explicit license
> clauses permitting it.
So, it's freeradius that needs the exception then, right?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
| |
| Tyler MacDonald 2006-04-08, 3:25 am |
| Scott Marlowe < smarlowe@g2switchwor
ks.com> wrote:
>
> So, it's freeradius that needs the exception then, right?
Good morning Scott, would you like some coffee? :-)
- Tyler
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
| |
| Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-04-08, 7:26 am |
| 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 application could be considered a dirivative work.
>
> Indeed indirect linking is a pretty common GPL dodge, given NVidia's
> approach to drivers.
Please keep in mind that this has nothing to do with what users can or
cannot do. The GPL is a *distribution* licence. 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.
Hence, Debian *as a distribution* cannot distribute precompiled
binaries (freeradius) that would cause a GPL program to depend on code
that cannot be distributed on compatable terms. People are ofcourse
free to download the source themselves, they're just not allowed to
distribute the resulting binaries.
The issue is that installing freeradius-postgresql would install
OpenSSL on the user's machine because libpq requires it. That's what's
wrong with your example, the ODBC connector doesn't depend on OpenSSL
so programs using it don't either.
Did anyone notice the last few lines of the freeradius copyright file?
It lists the modules in freeradius that directly or indirectly depend on
OpenSSL and thus cannot be distributed *in precompiled form*.
http://packages.debian.org/changelo...adius.copyright
> BTW, does this also mean that no GNU Readline is available in the Debian
> versions of psql? Or am I missing something?
What has this to do with anything? We're talking about libpq depending
on a GPL incompatable library, which GNU Readline obviously isn't.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.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.
|
|
|
|
|