From owner-freebsd-security Mon Apr 12 14:30: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EFDA14CEE for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:30:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28072; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:27:32 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.32.19990412152634.00ce0bb0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.32 (Beta) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:27:27 -0600 To: "Gregory P. Smith" From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: ssh protocol [was: Interesting problem: chowning files sent via FTP] Cc: Igor Roshchin , security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199904122047.NAA01335@ryouko.nas.nasa.gov> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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. --Brett At 01:47 PM 4/12/99 -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote: >> As I understand it, SSH is encumbered by a license that requires >> you to pay big bucks unless you're an individual or a non-profit. >> I'd need to build the protocol into the specialized client >> software, too, which also isn't allowed by the license. If it >> were BSD-licensed, it wouldn't be a problem. > >The ssh PROTOCOL is free. In fact, the v2 protocol is making progress >towards becoming an IETF standard. (v2 fixes some serious bugs in the >v1 protocol). There is a free (GNU) ssh v2 protocol implementation in >the works... Check out > >http://www.net.lut.ac.uk/psst/ > >(specifically, look at lsh) > >-Greg To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message