Date: 03 Jan 2000 13:00:11 +0000 From: Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> To: Markus Friedl <markus.friedl@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Cc: David Rankin <drankin@bohemians.lexington.ky.us>, Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org>, "Michael H. Warfield" <mhw@wittsend.com>, Dug Song <dugsong@monkey.org>, security@FreeBSD.org, openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org Subject: Re: OpenSSH protocol 1.6 proposal Message-ID: <87g0wfmht0.fsf@sheikh.hands.com> In-Reply-To: <20000102151208.A21548@folly.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> (Markus Friedl's message of "Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:12:08 %2B0100") References: <20000101235721.A15256@alcove.wittsend.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001020047520.36184-100000@green.dyndns.org> <20000102061545.A1691@rumpole.bohemians.lexington.ky.us> <20000102151208.A21548@folly.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Markus Friedl <markus.friedl@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> writes: > On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 06:15:48AM -0500, David Rankin wrote: > > Speaking completely without facts, I am personally skeptical about > > enhancing the 1.x protocol when all of the standards processes are > > focused on getting 2.0 out the door. That said, I am willing to be > > convinced on the matter. > > i have put the latest revisions of my SSH 1.6 patches to > http://wwwcip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/~msfriedl/openssh/ Quick question. Does this fall foul of this clause in the license: Any derived versions of this software must be clearly marked as such, and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other than "ssh" or "Secure Shell". If so, are these new features worth losing the right to call the executable ssh? Cheers, Phil. -- Boycott Amazon! --- http://linuxtoday.com/stories/13652.html 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?87g0wfmht0.fsf>