From owner-freebsd-security Mon Apr 12 17:10: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from megaweapon.zigg.com (megaweapon.zigg.com [206.114.60.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FB9153FA for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:09:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matt@zigg.com) Received: from localhost (matt@localhost) by megaweapon.zigg.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA08397; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:08:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from matt@zigg.com) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:08:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Matt Behrens To: Allen Smith Cc: Brett Glass , "Gregory P. Smith" , Igor Roshchin , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ssh protocol [was: Interesting problem: chowning files sent via FTP] In-Reply-To: <9904121656.ZM5526@beatrice.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org While LGPL is certainly acceptable, code being put under the BSD license does not mean it hasn't been reviewed by independent folk. (Hmm, aren't we on a list that discusses some rather oft-reviewed BSD-licensed software?) :-) On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, 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. Matt Behrens Owner/Administrator, zigg.com Chief Engineer, Nameless IRC Network To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message