Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > Pardon me for coming late to the party, but what was the
> > rationale behind putting openssl into the source anyway? Given the
> > rsa/no rsa problems, not to mention the US vs. the world problems,
> > what were the benefits that outweighed the complications? Note, I'm
> > not trying to be critical here, I'm just interested in the thought
> > process behind the decision.
>
> Having _a_ general-purpose cryptography toolkit in the base system allows
> us to add in all sorts of cool things to FreeBSD (https support for fetch,
> openssh, random cryptographic enhancements elsewhere). OpenSSL just
> happens to be the only decent freely-available (BSDL) toolkit.
Ok, that's pretty much what I expected, but thanks for the confirmation.
> The patent nonsense with RSA will be going away in september, and the US
> vs. the world problems have also been receding and probably won't last
> much longer either.
So how effective is openssl (plus the things that do/will depend on it)
without rsa(ref)? Can we complete the integration process assuming that
rsa* won't be on the system, but add hooks so that if the user has
independently installed the rsaref port openssl in the base will pick that
up? That will solve half the problem I think. As for the other problem,
what is currently different between the US and international code
repositories? I think I'm getting a handle on what's happening, it sounds
like the problems are not that difficult to solve, the just require some
planning.
Doug
--
"Welcome to the desert of the real."
- Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus, "The Matrix"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
