[OpenAFS-devel] mozilla ldap

[Brett L. Trotter]

I would much prefer to use OpenLDAP over Mozilla LDAP for a few reasons:
1) It is far more universal/supported, not to mention robust
2) Mozilla LDAP code is not nearly as well tried and tested
3) In our environment (RHEL), it is available from RHN without having to roll 
our own packages, which can get ugly in a mass deployment.
4) Similar to 3, people desiring to install OpenAFS with the ptsLDAP extension 
would be forced to compile mozilla ldap objects and place the binaries and 
headers appropriately, there is no pre-rolled rpm sitting around.. Or someone 
would have to compile the rpms/debs/whatever and make it available along with 
the OpenAFS packages.

I think by far the best option would be to use OpenLDAP, which almost every 
distrobution has a package for.


All that said..  #including/linking against OpenLDAP (OpenLDAP license- 
similar to BSD license) is out for some reason, but I can #include/link 
against Mozilla LDAP code (LGPL) as long as no code copying, paraphasing, etc 
occurs?

Provided I yank the nss_ldap code sections that read /etc/ldap.conf and 
rewrite them from scratch (as was the original intention anyway), as well as 
convert to using Mozilla LDAP, I should be able to eventually commit the 
ptsldap code to the OpenAFS tree?


On Wednesday 27 April 2005 1:54 pm, you wrote:
> Brett L. Trotter wrote:
> > The mozilla ldap library compilation isnt too bad.. though the configure
> > scripts don't set up all of the include paths quite right.. either way,
> > trying to compile against the red hat enterprise linux provided versions
> > worked more or less.. but getting it installed proved to be a bit of a
> > pain.
> >
> > In any case.. I've gotten a little confused as to what is ok and what is
> > not..
> >
> > Mozilla LDAP is apparently LGPL.. which apparently the gatekeepers cannot
> > commit code that links to it regardless of true license compatibility..
>
> We cannot commit code to the repository which is licensed under LGPL.
> The Mozilla headers should not be committed to our repository.
>
> Including headers which are licensed LGPL is fine.  Including headers
> which is licensed with GPL is not.   I think you are confusing GPL and
> LGPL.  They are not the same.
>
> Jeffrey Altman