Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:48:54 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Michael Bushkov <bushman@rsu.ru> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nss_ldap and openldap importing Message-ID: <20060710224854.GC47557@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20060707015458.GC500@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <44AD2569.9070007@rsu.ru> <44AD4D27.3060109@FreeBSD.org> <20060707015458.GC500@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 06:54:58PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 10:49:27AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: ..snip.. > > > nss_ldap itself uses LGPL. As we use nss_ldap only as dynamic library, > > > which is used in the "larger work" (which FreeBSD is), it can be also > > > included into the source tree. So, we can import nss_ldap, by directly > > > importing (with some specific changes, though) it and OpenLDAP into the > > > source tree, can we? Just want to be sure that I understand licensing > > > situation correctly. > > > > My understanding is that we are generally trying to avoid importing any new > > code that has any sort of GPL license. That would certainly be my (personal) > > preference in any case. > > Unless we have someone crediably committed to rewritting nss_ldap I > think this is a good place to make an exception. We can always remove > it later if an implementation exists, but we could really use better > integration with ldap. Why can't this live in ports? In none of my environments do I need LDAP support. I cannot imagine most of our users need LDAP support either. Also, openldap-2.3.24 appears to be 19MB of files. Just what are we talking about importing? I assume just the 3MB of the library directory? -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060710224854.GC47557>