Comments for GNU Transport Layer Security Library

15 May 2007 10:27 free2malloc

Re: License


> 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...

14 Dec 2002 09:50 jharr

Re: License
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.
>
>


16 Jun 2002 22:46 bug1

Re: License
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.

06 Nov 2001 13:26 aseigo

Re: License

> 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.

06 Nov 2001 11:34 dglaude

Re: License

> 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?

06 Nov 2001 06:10 haering

License
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.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

ReciJournal

An open, cross-platform journaling program.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

Veusz

A scientific plotting package.