From owner-freebsd-security Mon Apr 12 18:15: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from shibumi.feralmonkey.org (shibumi.feralmonkey.org [203.41.114.182]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F76D1565D for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nick@shibumi.feralmonkey.org) Received: from localhost (nick@localhost) by shibumi.feralmonkey.org (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA30426; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:10:10 GMT (envelope-from nick@shibumi.feralmonkey.org) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:10:09 +0000 (GMT) From: 0x1c 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 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