On Sat, 2002-05-04 at 17:12, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The Debian maintainer cannot simultaneously meet *all* goals in cases
> > like this. The question is, which is the best one to let slide. It
> > seems to me that having the maintainer make a trivial one-line change
> > to the source is much better than any of the other alternatives.
> Actually, the *best* thing is for someone to make an openssl
> alternative that doesn't conflict with the GPL, in my opinion.
I believe FSF are already doing this.
For instance, see libgcrypt1 and gnutls3.
However openssl started first, so it obviously has the advantage of
being more mature and with more features.
(I am not really familiar myself with the limitations in the GPL code;
however, when I tried it with mutt, it didn't seem to recognize the
remote host certificate was signed by a recognized CA certificate,
unless I recompiled it with openssl).
Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org