[14835] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: Open Source Embedded SSL - (License and Memory)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Stewart)
Sat Nov 29 09:04:20 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:14:34 -0800
To: "J Harper" <jsec@peersec.com>
From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
Cc: <billtlists@icarion.com>, <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
In-Reply-To: <003701c3b4c3$bd8331a0$0200a8c0@backlove>
[Moderator's note: I'd really like to shut down the "What license?"
debate --Perry]
At 12:52 AM 11/27/2003 -0800, J Harper wrote:
> > 1) Not GPL or LPGL, please. I'm a fan of the GPL for most things, but
>
> > for embedded software, especially in the security domain, it's a
> > killer. I'm supposed to allow users to modify the software that runs
> > on their secure token? And on a small platform where there won't be
> > such things as loadable modules, or even process separation, the
> > (L)GPL really does become viral. This is, I think, why Red Hat
> > releases eCos under a non-GPL (but still open source) license.
>
>We're aware of these issues. How do other people on the group feel?
That's an obvious call for a BSD / C-News style license
- You're free to copy it but leave our copyright notice in.
- You acknowledge that you got it for free and that any consequences,
no matter how horrible, of what you do with it are not our
responsibility.
- You're free to change it, but only if you include a notice that you
changed it.
- Maybe something about you must either distribute the licensed source code
for no more than a copying/handling charge or else a pointer to
the original.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
