Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 20:20:31 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: ache@astral.msk.su, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Crypt code summary(2). Message-ID: <199506261820.UAA13634@grumble.grondar.za>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 1) SSLref SSL implementation (Netscape) > > uses RSAREF, you don't need PKP license for it. > > Which I would be STRONGLY opposed to having in the source tree. Why? You have voiced an opinion for another package (I cannot remember its name). Lets hear some argument for this. I would like _something_. > It's not RSAREF, therefore we can't distribute it in the US without a > license. (Unless distributors want to get sued; I don't.) > > > 3) Outside USA exists RSAEURO, which is compatible > > with RSAREF and made in Europe. > > It's not RSAREF, therefore we can't distribute it in the US without a > license. (Unless distributors want to get sued; I don't.) You are missing a point here. What is wrong (apart from your reservations above) of distributing RSAREF in the USA and RSAEURO elsewhere? > I don't seem to be getting through here. We have an elaborate > mechanism for dealing with this sort of problem in the ports > collection. The base source tree is too big as it is. You're > proposing to bloat it even further to include something which belongs > in ports if anywhere at all. There is a tacit agreement that some form of secure-secure-type mechanism should be in the tree. I (and a couple of others) believe this (SSLeay) is it. M -- Mark Murray 46 Harvey Rd, Claremont, Cape Town 7700, South Africa +27 21 61-3768 GMT+0200
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506261820.UAA13634>