Open Source (was Simple SSL/TLS - Some Questions)

[Arcane Jill]

Okay, okay. I've got the message. I give in.

The toolkit will be distributed with the most generous, most liberal 
license possible. This means that (basically) anyone can do pretty much 
anything with it, including release binaries compiled with it.

I'm happy with this decision. It means that if Alice wishes to trust 
software written or modified by Eve (or Mallory, etc.)., then she is 
perfectly entitled to do so. It is up to Alice to choose her own threat 
model, not me. The bottom line is, everyone has the right to choose whom 
they trust ... even if they're wrong. (After all, I can hardly demand 
that right for myself and then deny it to others, can I?).

Jill (Ramonsky ... sending from new email address)


Oh yeah, one last thing....

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz at datapower.com]
 > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 4:19 PM
 > To: Jill Ramonsky
 > Cc: iang at systemics.com; cryptography at metzdowd.com
 > Subject: Re: Open Source (was Simple SSL/TLS - Some Questions)
 >
 >
 > I think that rather than spending time on deciding what to call this
 > library that is to-be-written, and how to license this library that is
 > to-be-written, that time should be spent on, well, writing it. :)
 >         /r$

Aha - I'm ahead of you there. I've already started. But more than one 
person advised me to not talk about code until at least one third of it 
was finished, in order to avoid real-time discussions about how code 
"should" be written. If I am silent on the coding progress, rest assured 
it doesn't mean I'm not doing anything.

On the other hand, I /could/ post progress reports if people wanted. I 
have absolutely no idea whether that would be considered appropriate or 
not. I'm open to suggestion.

Jill


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com