Subject: Re: PAM
To: Oleg Polyanski <Oleg.Polianski@team.telstraclear.co.nz>
From: Jim Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/28/2002 19:30:42
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Oleg Polyanski wrote:
>David Laight <email@example.com> writes:
>> > Does anyone have any idea how much of the available PAM code is
>> > BSD licensed versus GPL or other?
>> > e.g. Will it be necessary to implement the basic PAM support
>> > from scratch? Will we be able to use a large percentage of PAM
>> > modules in a BSD environment without worrying about the GPL?
>> Well if they are GPL, then they can be used as shared libraries
>> without 'tainting' the programs that are build with them. However
>> a static link enforces the GPL on the entire binary.
> I was pretty sure that shared libraries can taint the main
> binary as well as static can.
It's a somewhat loose distinction, but it has been resolved that
loadable modules do not taint the loading program (for obvious reasons).
This is depended on, by, eg, Linux kernel module vendors.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----