From owner-freebsd-security Mon Jan 3 5: 0: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from camelot.netcom.net.uk (camelot.netcom.net.uk [194.42.225.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F216715134 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 04:59:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phil@hands.com) Received: from fist.hands.com (dialup-14-11.netcomuk.co.uk [194.42.231.139]) by camelot.netcom.net.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA13812 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 12:59:53 GMT Received: (qmail 32557 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2000 13:35:04 -0000 Received: from sheikh-dmz.hands.com (HELO sheikh.hands.com) (qmailr@193.195.34.10) by fist.hands.com with SMTP; 3 Jan 2000 13:35:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 13712 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Jan 2000 13:00:12 -0000 To: Markus Friedl Cc: David Rankin , Brian Fundakowski Feldman , "Michael H. Warfield" , Dug Song , security@FreeBSD.org, openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org Subject: Re: OpenSSH protocol 1.6 proposal References: <20000101235721.A15256@alcove.wittsend.com> <20000102061545.A1691@rumpole.bohemians.lexington.ky.us> <20000102151208.A21548@folly.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> From: Philip Hands Date: 03 Jan 2000 13:00:11 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20000102151208.A21548@folly.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> (Markus Friedl's message of "Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:12:08 +0100") Message-ID: <87g0wfmht0.fsf@sheikh.hands.com> Lines: 24 User-Agent: T-gnus/6.13.3 (based on Pterodactyl Gnus v0.98) Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Markus Friedl 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