["Ronnie Sahlberg" <sahlberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Is there no other implementation of the crypto functions we could use
instead of OpenSSL?

As an alternative, I imagine there would only be a small subset ot the
functions from OpenSSL that we would
be interested in, how much work would it be to implement this subset of the
API from scratch as GPL?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Hamish Moffatt"
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Ethereal-dev] RADIUS's "Message Authenticator"


> On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 07:40:00PM -0600, David Frascone wrote:
> > Ok.  Good example.  But, what about libc under Solaris.  It's just
>
> That's specifically covered by the GPL. Source is not required for
> libraries that usually accompany the system.
>
> > > As free software authors we should not be trying to evade a free
> > > software license - especially the license of the product we are
> > > working on!
> >
> > I don't think we're evading a license.  If OpenSSL was GPL, then there
> > would be no discussion going on.  We're trying to use another free
> > library, with a *less* restrictive license than our own.  We seem to
>
> We're evading Ethereal's license! And we are only free to change
> Ethereal's license to allow this with the consent of the authors,
> of which there are 188.
>
> > have no problem linking with libraries with *more* restrictive licenses
> > (i.e. libc under HP/UX, Solaris, and, God forbid, MS Windows), but are
>
> GPL exemption, as above.
>
> > having many issues linking to a less restrictive one.  And, we're even
> > (If we take my runtime only linking approach) completly avoiding any
> > source code contamination by linking only at run time.
>
> I can't see the difference between dlopen and just dynamic linking.
>
> > I say let's do it.  I seriously doubt anyone will complain.  And, if
> > *anyone* does (even one author), then we just throw out the changes.
>
> How about sending a one time email to every listed contributor?
> No reply = consent.
>
> Hamish