[Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox CA

Simo s at ssimo.org
Thu Sep 12 22:22:26 UTC 2013


On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 13:58 -0700, cgw993 at aol.com wrote:
> Thank god there are still people that stick to and defend the GNU Gpl

I am sure I wrote more GNU GPL software than you did.

If it were a matter of license incompatibility then you could also
choose the NSS library (formerly from mozilla) which is used in all
major browsers (so you already use it every day).

It has a different but equally awful API than OpenSSL, but has received
also a ton more scrutiny and certification than GnuTLS.

Understand that I have nothing against GnuTLS per se, it just lacks tons
of features and scrutiny that openssl and NSS already have.

Simo.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Freedombox-discuss [mailto:freedombox-discuss-bounces+cgw993=aol.com at lists.alioth.debian.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:52 PM
> To: Simo
> Cc: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org; keith at sd-kvm.me4.it
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox CA
> 
> On 09/12/2013 04:40 PM, Simo wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 15:13 +0100, keith at sd-kvm.me4.it wrote:
> >> Gnutls may be usable as an alternative to Openssl.
> >> It's already in Debian, new to me.
> > 
> > What's wrong with OpenSSL that GNUTLS get's right ?
> 
>  * Licensing that is not deliberately incompatible with the GPL.
> 
>  * A sane and modern library API (granted, parts of OpenSSL are have these features too; most projects are mired in the horror, though)
> 
>  * delegation of specific tasks to other libraries, rather than kitchen-sink agglomeration.
> 
> There are probably other reasons.
> 
> 	--dkg
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss






More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list