| From: Jill Ramonsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| From: Ian Grigg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| The only question I wasn't quite sure of
| was whether, if I take your code, and modify it,
| can I distribute a binary only version, and keep
| the source changes proprietary?
|
| You can't
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Ian Grigg wrote: (answering Jill's questions)
The only question I wasn't quite sure of
was whether, if I take your code, and modify it,
can I distribute a binary only version, and keep
the source changes proprietary?
I'd strongly recommend to think about some code-signing
Jill Ramonsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric raised some points which I should address. First, he asked me
You have read the RFC, right?. Well I guess I should be honest here
and say no, I hadn't done that yet. Maybe that's where I went wrong,
and would have asked fewer dumb questions if I
Jill Ramonsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I confess ignorance in matters concerning licensing. The basic rules
which I want, and which I believe are appropriate are:
(i) Anyone can use it, royalty free. Even commercial applications.
(ii) Anyone can get the source code, and should be able to
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jill Ramonsky wrote:
My question is, how much of a problem is this for the embedded market?
Have you looked at GNU Pth? It's a non-preemptive threading package
which should be reasonably portable.
I don't know the TLS/ASN.1 formats by heart, but
Jill Ramonsky wrote:
First, the primary design goal is simple to use.
This is the highest goal of all. If it is not simple
to use, it misses out on a lot of opportunities. And
missing out results in less crypto being deployed.
If you have to choose between simple-but-incomplete,
versus
Jill Ramonsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now - SSL or TLS - this confuses me. From what I've read in Eric's
book, SSL version 3.0 or below is called SSL, wheras SSL version 3.1
or above is called TLS.
I wouldn't use quite that terminology. Noone talks about SSL version
3.1, but rather TLS 1.0.
