Subject: Re: PAM
To: Andrew Gillham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Giles Lean <email@example.com>
Date: 08/29/2002 11:58:05
Andrew Gillham wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea how much of the available PAM code is BSD
> licensed versus GPL or other?
The only implementations of the PAM framework that I know about are
commercial (Sun, HP, ...) and GPL (Linux).
> 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?
Framework probably has to be done from scratch, unless the author(s)
of the Linux code can be persuaded to release their implementation
under a BSD license.
For PAM modules the license will be whatever the writer decided.
Sometimes it may make sense to match the base system e.g. if a "unix"
style authentication module were written to be distributed with
NetBSD, it would want to be BSD licensed.
A module that links with MySQL might as well be LGPL or GPL, since
that's the license that MySQL uses. A PostgreSQL module might use a
BSD license. Something that links with Oracle or proprietary
libraries (e.g. to access a smart card reader or some such) might use
any number of licenses.
Drifting off topic: this posting is intended to be informational. I'm
not espousing PAM: it would be neat to have it available in NetBSD for
compatibility, but for its own sake the implementations I've seen have
had limitations such as not allowing per-user configuration. I think
there is room for a NetBSD implementation that provides the standard
API for module writers (necessary for portability) but is smarter
about how it configures and calls the modules.