If RedHat does this - well - there is Suse, Debian, etc. Also we can go with
Apache/modssl and this is my prefered way
anyway... either that or twaite.
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:32:18 -0600, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/13/99
>
> at 10:47 AM, "Erik M. A. Kline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>>> I am rather confused as to why Red Hat would go with a closed, proprietary
>>> crypto library instead of going with OpenSSL, doesn't seem to be the Linux
>>> way.
>
>> I think there are stringent, or at least greatly feared, legal issues
>>surrounding the RSA patents here in the U.S. And since no browser
>>actually uses the patent- or royalty- free crypto-suites in TLS, American
>>companies are forced to deal with RSA. I don't think that RedHat should
>>get the blame. They're probably just covering their butts. IMHO.
>
>Yes but those patents expire next year. It would be a shame if Red Hat
>entered into some type of contract that extended their obligations to
>RSADSI beyond this time.
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net
>Geiger Consulting
>
>Data Security & Cryptology Consulting
>Programming, Networking, Analysis
>
>PGP for OS/2: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
>User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
