Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:10:09 +0000 (GMT) From: 0x1c <nick@shibumi.feralmonkey.org> To: Allen Smith <easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, "Gregory P. Smith" <greg@nas.nasa.gov>, Igor Roshchin <igor@physics.uiuc.edu>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ssh protocol [was: Interesting problem: chowning files sent via FTP] Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9904131208110.26852-100000@shibumi.feralmonkey.org> In-Reply-To: <9904121656.ZM5526@beatrice.rutgers.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. How does the licence (gpl, lgpl, or bsd) have anything to do with independent cryptographers reviewing the code? The only crucial requirement is that the relevant source be available for analysis. Nick -- Therefore those skilled at the unorthodox are as infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers. -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9904131208110.26852-100000>