On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 15:48 -0700, cgw...@aol.com wrote: > " I am sure I wrote more GNU GPL software than you did." - Ok but how > does that relate to my statement that I am grateful for people that > stick to the GPL?
It looked to me like a way of implying "unlike others that propose non-GPL libraries". It's not like OpenSSL is proprietary or anything. And I am also grateful to people that stick to the GPL, I see it especially important for applications, however in the case of crypto libraries, I personally prefer a license that has no compatibilty issues. Crypto is extremely important and difficult to get right and you want to have the maximum possible adoption of a good implementation without any possible or perceived barrier. Simo. > -----Original Message----- > From: Simo [mailto:s...@ssimo.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM > To: cgw...@aol.com > Cc: freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org; ke...@sd-kvm.me4.it > Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox CA > > On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 13:58 -0700, cgw...@aol.com wrote: > > Thank god there are still people that stick to and defend the GNU Gpl > > I am sure I wrote more GNU GPL software than you did. > > If it were a matter of license incompatibility then you could also choose the > NSS library (formerly from mozilla) which is used in all major browsers (so > you already use it every day). > > It has a different but equally awful API than OpenSSL, but has received also > a ton more scrutiny and certification than GnuTLS. > > Understand that I have nothing against GnuTLS per se, it just lacks tons of > features and scrutiny that openssl and NSS already have. > > Simo. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Freedombox-discuss > > [mailto:freedombox-discuss-bounces+cgw993=aol.com@lists.alioth.debian. > > org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kahn Gillmor > > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:52 PM > > To: Simo > > Cc: freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org; ke...@sd-kvm.me4.it > > Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox CA > > > > On 09/12/2013 04:40 PM, Simo wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 15:13 +0100, ke...@sd-kvm.me4.it wrote: > > >> Gnutls may be usable as an alternative to Openssl. > > >> It's already in Debian, new to me. > > > > > > What's wrong with OpenSSL that GNUTLS get's right ? > > > > * Licensing that is not deliberately incompatible with the GPL. > > > > * A sane and modern library API (granted, parts of OpenSSL are have > > these features too; most projects are mired in the horror, though) > > > > * delegation of specific tasks to other libraries, rather than > > kitchen-sink agglomeration. > > > > There are probably other reasons. > > > > --dkg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Freedombox-discuss mailing list > > Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-dis > > cuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedombox-discuss mailing list > Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
