Open Source Embedded SSL - (License and Memory)

Bill Stewart bill.stewart at
Fri Nov 28 02:14:34 EST 2003

[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 allow users to modify the software that runs
> > on their secure token?  And on a small platform where there won't be
> > such things as loadable modules, or even process separation, the
> > (L)GPL really does become viral.  This is, I think, why Red Hat
> > releases eCos under a non-GPL (but still open source) license.
>We're aware of these issues.  How do other people on the group feel?

That's an obvious call for a BSD / C-News style license
- You're free to copy it but leave our copyright notice in.
- You acknowledge that you got it for free and that any consequences,
         no matter how horrible, of what you do with it are not our 
- You're free to change it, but only if you include a notice that you 
changed it.
- Maybe something about you must either distribute the licensed source code
         for no more than a copying/handling charge or else a pointer to 
the original.

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at

More information about the cryptography mailing list