[14829] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: Open Source Embedded SSL - (License and Memory)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (J Harper)
Fri Nov 28 13:59:10 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: "J Harper" <jsec@peersec.com>
To: "'Simon Josefsson'" <jas@extundo.com>
Cc: <billtlists@icarion.com>, <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:07:26 -0800
In-Reply-To: <ilufzg9lpjm.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
>>> 1) Not GPL or LPGL, please. I'm a fan of the GPL for most things,
>>
>> We're aware of these issues. How do other people on the group feel?
>
>Speaking frankly: You should read up on what common licenses
>imply and make your own decision, depending on what your goals
>are. While doing so, you might want to question the assertion
>that LGPL is "viral".
I'm familiar with the various standard licenses. And your advice is
sound, we'll pick one that aligns with our goals for the release. I
guess this could be viewed as a religious issue, but I'm interested in
the usage issue, especially for the small footprint space. If Bill's
view of GPL is a common one in embedded, it is worth us taking into
account. For us as a company releasing source, licenses with copyleft
will reduce the risk of forking and have other benefits. The "viral"
nature of GPL in embedded, however, I think is a valid concern. I think
Peter Gutmann's cryptlib is GPL compatible, what has been the
embedded/corporate response to it?
J
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
