John Gilmore wrote:
Anonymous said:
The major problem that holds back the development of FreeS/WAN is
with its management. [Management that cares more about sitting on
its pulpit, than getting useful software into the hands of people.]
Unless things have changed recently, they still
Or is there something we should be doing to get RedHat, and Debian, and
other US-based distributions to include it?
Absolutely. It's already pretty secure. We should just make it
trivial to install, automatic, transparent, self-configuring,
painless to administer, and free of serious bugs.
At 12:18 AM -0600 12/11/01, Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, John Gilmore wrote:
NSA's export controls. We overturned them by a pretty thin margin.
The government managed to maneuver such that no binding precedents
were set: if they unilaterally change the regulations tomorrow to
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 06:29 am, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
Having a body of open source crypto software that is not entangled by
any U.S. input is not a foolish idea.
Not when the body of software is critical for Linux and the
widespread use of IPSec. If you want widespread adoption
of
Anonymous said:
The major problem that holds back the development of FreeS/WAN is
with its management. [Management that cares more about sitting on
its pulpit, than getting useful software into the hands of people.]
Unless things have changed recently, they still won't accept
contributions
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, John Gilmore wrote:
NSA's export controls. We overturned them by a pretty thin margin.
The government managed to maneuver such that no binding precedents
were set: if they unilaterally change the regulations tomorrow to
block the export of public domain crypto, they
