On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 08:14 PM, Oden Eriksson wrote:
[...] >> I read part of the draft and nosed around the site. Can't say that I >> really care to include this. Looks like it's a nice way for them to >> make some extra $$. I didn't really see anything about a license >> there, so have no clue what the license is; there's just the one >> copyright notice. >> >> I can't say that I'm thrilled with the idea of adding something like >> this. > > You might be right about the $$. But it's new code following a new RFC > from > what I could understand. New features are allways exiting. I have > mailed > vandyke to make them clarify the license. You're missing the point. If you look at the RFC, *they* wrote it. This isn't a "community" RFC that they decided to implement; they wrote the RFC and they're selling the product. It looks very self-serving to me. Not to say it isn't an interesting concept, but I would like to see what the openssh team decides before arbitrarily adding it. Of course, it would be a different story if vandyke wanted to "sponsor" our adoption of their ideas. Monetarily, of course. =) >> Sure, it definitely might be interesting. I'd like to get the >> thoughts >> of the openssh team first, tho. I really don't like adding stuff that >> hasn't been audited by them (since they know the openssh code better >> than I), especially with openssh being such a core component. If it >> was licq or something, no big deal. > > Yes, you're right. Let's wait and see what happens. I searched their > mail > archives but couldn't find a word about the keyserver feature. Nope, haven't seen anything either. I'll fire something off to the list and ask about it. -- MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/ "lynx - source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import" {FE6F2AFD: 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}
PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature
