Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:10:46 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: "Allen Smith" <easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu>, "Gregory P. Smith" <greg@nas.nasa.gov> Cc: Igor Roshchin <igor@physics.uiuc.edu>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ssh protocol [was: Interesting problem: chowning files sent via FTP] Message-ID: <4.2.0.32.19990412160742.00c35dc0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <9904121656.ZM5526@beatrice.rutgers.edu> References: <Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> <Your message of "Mon 12 Apr 1999 13:28:39 MDT." <4.2.0.32.19990412132649.043b7350@localhost> <4.2.0.32.19990412152634.00ce0bb0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Berkeley licensing would also allow cryptographers to review the code, but would have the advantage that people could incorporate it not just as a library but as an integral part of a product. Also, Richard Stallman has pretty much decreed that the LGPL is history as far as FSF and "GNU" projects are concerned. They'll use the GPL on their libraries in an attempt to force companies to give up their work. This will backfire, of course, and we'll wind up with incompatible implementations. --Brett At 04:56 PM 4/12/99 -0400, Allen Smith wrote: >On Apr 12, 4:30pm, Brett Glass (possibly) wrote: >> A GPLed implementation would be a bad idea, because it would prevent >> the code from being incorporated into commercial products and thus >> discourage standardization. This is one situation in which BSD-type >> licensing would be infinitely preferable. > >Actually, what would be preferable is some form of GNU _library_ license. I'm >not willing to trust an encryption program unless I know independent >cryptographers have reviewed the code. > > -Allen > >-- >Allen Smith easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.0.32.19990412160742.00c35dc0>