> 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.
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
> 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
> then again, perhaps those involved in
> the project
> simply wanted to write a TLS library for
> their own
> satisfaction and education.
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.
> 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
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.
> What's the purpose of this
> except of having a GNU
> label in front of a SSL library?
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?
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
An open, cross-platform journaling program.
A scientific plotting package.