On 12/10/12 21:45, Maximo Pech wrote: ... > Well, with the information you have given me so far, I think the answer is > something like "nobody has written it because we have more important things > to do and nobody believes there is a real need for that". Am I right? >
I have lived a long time and never used PGP, GNUpg, NetPGP...whatever on my own systems. Never had a reason to, never had the desire to. Got a task at work where this may be requested, and in that case, it's because they are "doing it wrong", trying to make e-mail into a secure communications channel. In my mind, e-mail is a non-secure communications channel, and I'm not fond of trying to bolt-on gadgets to make non-secure things look secure. You seem to have a problem you expect all of us to have that requires a PGP-equivalent to solve. Apparently, we don't all share this problem. You have not told us what this problem is you are trying to solve...but in general, naming the tool rather than naming the problem you are attempting to solve is bad process. You are coming in as if you are trying to sound high-and-mighty and pointing out what fools we are for not having (yet again) reinvented your favorite tool in base. You have yet to make a case for: 1) why such a tool should be in base, when obviously no developers seem to think it should be. 2) why such a tool should be reinvented Yet Again, when there are multiple varying degrees of free implementations out there already. 3) why you care. What are you doing that could possibly be improved drastically by a BSD-licensed PGP implementation in base? In fact, your question appears to misunderstand the /reason/ we would want a BSD licensed anything in base -- it isn't over a "my license is better than your license" pissing match, it's about what you could DO with that. The GNU license on GNUgp puts limitations on your ability to modify and redistribute it in a commercial product. Being that PGP is sorta a standardized product...do you want people distributing modified versions of PGP? anyone who has reason to do that will find plenty of crypto libraries and tools in OpenBSD, they won't need to tear apart and rebuild a PGP tool. Yes, the OpenBSD project cares a lot about cryptography, but using it where it makes sense using as few tools as possible to do it right. Hey, why don't we have a crypto-ls? It's really important! What if someone is looking over your shoulder when you do an 'ls'? Nick.
