On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:32:32PM -0500, Bill Tompkins wrote:
> I can't speak to how common it is, but there are applications that
> require crypto, and that require some sort of negotiation protocol, that
> don't use TCP or Ethernet. For example- wireless apps, or various
> non-ethernet multi-dr
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:15, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> How common is it to find an embedded system sophisticated enough to have a TCP
> stack and ethernet interface (and running SSL), but not sophisticated enough
> to have a malloc() implementation? I've always assumed that anything with the
> forme
"J Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>2) Make it functional on systems without memory allocation. Did I
>>mention that I work on (very) small embedded systems? Having fixed
>>spaces for variables is useful when you want something to run
>>deterministically for a long time with no resets, and
[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 a
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 t
>>> 1) Not GPL or LPGL, please. I'm a fan of the GPL for most things,
>>
>> We're aware of these issues. How do other people on the group feel?
>
>Speaking frankly: You should read up on what common licenses
>imply and make your own decision, depending on what your goals
>are. While doing so,
> 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 thing
