An SSL/TLS library under the GPL. Yuck! What's the
purpose of this except of having a GNU label in front of
a SSL library?
OpenSSL can do the same, while having a much more
reasonable license.
[»]
Re: License
by David GLAUDE - Nov 6th 2001 11:34:48
> What's the purpose of this
> except of having a GNU
> label in front of a SSL library?
Good question...
Maybe someone will be more likely to invest time in contributing to
something that will stay free and open rather than something that can/could
be used in closed world with private modification distribute as binary.
Check for GPL in http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html
and you see the begining of an issue with openssl.
Does anybody know GPL program that use OpenSSL
and do they have a GPL exception stated?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: License
by Aaron J. Seigo - Nov 6th 2001 13:26:36
> OpenSSL can do the same, while having
> a much more
> reasonable license.
>
resonability is in the eye of the beholder; dismissing
something based on your own preferences is a bit
silly. some people would prefer a GPL'd
implementation.
beyond that, OpenSSL is getting rather huge and
slow (or so my crypto budies tell me) and a rewrite
resulting in a smaller, faster library could be exactly
what the doctor ordered for many projects.
then again, perhaps those involved in the project
simply wanted to write a TLS library for their own
satisfaction and education.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: License
by HeX - Dec 14th 2002 09:50:13
TAKE THAT :P
(to the original poster) Honestly do you have to be that partial to
OpenSSL. GPL is about keeping your mind open. OpenSSL has to get some
merrit for being one of the first open source SSL implementations, however
stuff doesn't get better unless it is challenged. And if OpenSSL gets shot
down by GNUTLS because of its speed and reliability, it'll be for a reason.
I'm not saying it will, but it could happen.
>
> % OpenSSL can do the same, while having
> % a much more
> % reasonable license.
> %
>
>
> resonability is in the eye of the
> beholder; dismissing
> something based on your own preferences
> is a bit
> silly. some people would prefer a GPL'd
>
> implementation.
>
> beyond that, OpenSSL is getting rather
> huge and
> slow (or so my crypto budies tell me)
> and a rewrite
> resulting in a smaller, faster library
> could be exactly
> what the doctor ordered for many
> projects.
>
> then again, perhaps those involved in
> the project
> simply wanted to write a TLS library for
> their own
> satisfaction and education.
>
>
--
Khujo - james@spam.me.not.grickle.org
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: License
by bug1 - Jun 16th 2002 22:46:07
Its questionable wether GPL'ed binaries can link to openssl. The issue is
mentioned in the openssl FAQ, however its not as clear cut as they make
out.
openssl is not Free to developers who use the GPL, gnutls is.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: License
by free2malloc - May 15th 2007 10:27:07
> An SSL/TLS library under the GPL. Yuck!
> What's the
> purpose of this except of having a GNU
> label in front of
> a SSL library?
>
> OpenSSL can do the same, while having a
> much more
> reasonable license.
>
good point. i say the same about linux, what a
stupid project, let's just all use windows because it
works the way we all expect it to.
pfft...
[reply]
[top]
