From nmav at hellug.gr Mon May 7 21:14:15 2001 From: nmav at hellug.gr (Nikos Mavroyanopoulos) Date: Mon May 7 21:14:15 2001 Subject: ssl 2.0/ srp Message-ID: <20010507220835.2fc73761.nmav@hellug.gr> I've been doing some work the last days in gnutls. I've modified the cvs version in order to understand the SSL 2.0 client hello messages (I do not know why browsers insist to use that)... I'm also working into adding srp support in gnutls... -- Nikos Mavroyanopoulos mailto:nmav at hellug.gr From nmav at hellug.gr Tue May 8 22:31:01 2001 From: nmav at hellug.gr (Nikos Mavroyanopoulos) Date: Tue May 8 22:31:01 2001 Subject: SRP Message-ID: <20010508232704.0bb3a95f.nmav@hellug.gr> Gnutls seems to work with SRP now. However there are no other implementations I know that use SRP, thus it's difficult to test (and I still have some things to do)... -- Nikos Mavroyanopoulos mailto:nmav at hellug.gr From yakk at yakk.net.au Mon May 14 22:43:02 2001 From: yakk at yakk.net.au (Ian McKellar) Date: Mon May 14 22:43:02 2001 Subject: GNU TLS Licensing Message-ID: <20010514133918.B6439@yakk.net.au> Hi, I'm the maintainer of GnomeVFS - the GNOME Virtual Filesystem library. The library provides a simple api for accessing filesystems both local and remote. I'm working on SSL support so that we can implement HTTPS. Unfortunately there are no SSL implementations that are license-compatible with GnomeVFS's LGPL. Are there any plans to license GNU TLS (and its dependant libraries) under the LGPL? Right now I'm using OpenSSL which is clearly incompatible (BSD with advertising) and the only alternative is Netscape's NSS (dual MPL/GPL). Thanks, Ian From nmav at hellug.gr Tue May 15 00:05:01 2001 From: nmav at hellug.gr (Nikos Mavroyanopoulos) Date: Tue May 15 00:05:01 2001 Subject: GNU TLS Licensing In-Reply-To: <20010514133918.B6439@yakk.net.au> References: <20010514133918.B6439@yakk.net.au> Message-ID: <20010515005233.1f07b970.nmav@hellug.gr> On Mon, 14 May 2001 13:39:18 +0800 Ian McKellar wrote: > Hi, > I'm the maintainer of GnomeVFS - the GNOME Virtual Filesystem library. The > library provides a simple api for accessing filesystems both local and remote. > I'm working on SSL support so that we can implement HTTPS. Unfortunately there clients and servers implementing https use mainly x509 certificates, and this is something gnutls cannot handle at the moment. > are no SSL implementations that are license-compatible with GnomeVFS's LGPL. > Are there any plans to license GNU TLS (and its dependant libraries) under > the LGPL? Right now I'm using OpenSSL which is clearly incompatible (BSD with > advertising) and the only alternative is Netscape's NSS (dual MPL/GPL). There are no plans to change gnutls' license to lgpl for the moment. Even if I did, libgcrypt (which gnutls uses), is under gpl too. > Thanks, > Ian -- Nikos Mavroyanopoulos mailto:nmav at hellug.gr From yakk at yakk.net.au Tue May 15 06:17:01 2001 From: yakk at yakk.net.au (Ian McKellar) Date: Tue May 15 06:17:01 2001 Subject: GNU TLS Licensing In-Reply-To: <20010515005233.1f07b970.nmav@hellug.gr>; from nmav@hellug.gr on Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:52:33AM +0300 References: <20010514133918.B6439@yakk.net.au> <20010515005233.1f07b970.nmav@hellug.gr> Message-ID: <20010514211333.C6439@yakk.net.au> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:52:33AM +0300, Nikos Mavroyanopoulos wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2001 13:39:18 +0800 Ian McKellar wrote: > > > Hi, > > I'm the maintainer of GnomeVFS - the GNOME Virtual Filesystem library. The > > library provides a simple api for accessing filesystems both local and remote. > > I'm working on SSL support so that we can implement HTTPS. Unfortunately there > clients and servers implementing https use mainly x509 certificates, and this > is something gnutls cannot handle at the moment. I was aware that gnutls wasn't ready for production yet (but I didn't know what the limitations were). I guess support for this is just a matter of time. > > > are no SSL implementations that are license-compatible with GnomeVFS's LGPL. > > Are there any plans to license GNU TLS (and its dependant libraries) under > > the LGPL? Right now I'm using OpenSSL which is clearly incompatible (BSD with > > advertising) and the only alternative is Netscape's NSS (dual MPL/GPL). > There are no plans to change gnutls' license to lgpl for the moment. > Even if I did, libgcrypt (which gnutls uses), is under gpl too. Okay. Do you think relicensing gnutls would be an option if libgcrypt could be relicensed? Thanks, Ian From nmav at hellug.gr Wed May 16 11:01:01 2001 From: nmav at hellug.gr (Nikos Mavroyanopoulos) Date: Wed May 16 11:01:01 2001 Subject: Fw: Re: GNU TLS Licensing Message-ID: <20010516114111.07da4e9a.nmav@hellug.gr> On Mon, 14 May 2001 21:13:33 +0800 Ian McKellar wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:52:33AM +0300, Nikos Mavroyanopoulos wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I'm the maintainer of GnomeVFS - the GNOME Virtual Filesystem library. The > > > library provides a simple api for accessing filesystems both local and remote. > > > I'm working on SSL support so that we can implement HTTPS. Unfortunately there > > clients and servers implementing https use mainly x509 certificates, and this > > is something gnutls cannot handle at the moment. > I was aware that gnutls wasn't ready for production yet (but I didn't know > what the limitations were). I guess support for this is just a matter of time. it's a matter of time... but there are no time tables now. > > There are no plans to change gnutls' license to lgpl for the moment. > > Even if I did, libgcrypt (which gnutls uses), is under gpl too. > Okay. Do you think relicensing gnutls would be an option if libgcrypt could > be relicensed? Yes it would be an option. The original idea was to be GPL since openssl was available for commercial programs. However I think we need some advocacy here. As things stand OpenSSL seems the only choice for LGPL libraries, or the library should be dual licensed (GPL, if gnutls is used, and LGPL otherwise). > Thanks, > Ian -- Nikos Mavroyanopoulos mailto:nmav at hellug.gr From danw at ximian.com Wed May 16 18:38:01 2001 From: danw at ximian.com (Dan Winship) Date: Wed May 16 18:38:01 2001 Subject: GNU TLS Licensing In-Reply-To: <20010516114111.07da4e9a.nmav@hellug.gr> References: <20010516114111.07da4e9a.nmav@hellug.gr> Message-ID: <990030934.29084.3.camel@twelve-monkeys.ximian.com> > > Okay. Do you think relicensing gnutls would be an option if libgcrypt could > > be relicensed? > > Yes it would be an option. The original idea was to be GPL since openssl was > available for commercial programs. However I think we need some advocacy here. > > As things stand OpenSSL seems the only choice for LGPL libraries But OpenSSL is not GPL-compatible, so if gnome-vfs used it, it would become GPL-incompatible itself. So gnome-vfs would have to dynamically load either OpenSSL or GnuTLS at run-time depending on whether it was being called from a GPLed or non-GPLed program or something like that... Blah. -- Dan From return at trafficmagnet.net Sun May 20 22:29:01 2001 From: return at trafficmagnet.net (Christine Hall) Date: Sun May 20 22:29:01 2001 Subject: GNUTLS.HELLUG.GR Message-ID: <200105202032.f4KKWf819041@smtp2.trafficmagnet.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wk at gnupg.org Wed May 23 10:11:01 2001 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Wed May 23 10:11:01 2001 Subject: Fw: Re: GNU TLS Licensing In-Reply-To: <20010516114111.07da4e9a.nmav@hellug.gr> References: <20010516114111.07da4e9a.nmav@hellug.gr> Message-ID: <20010523101621.F6540@alberti.gnupg.de> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Nikos Mavroyanopoulos wrote: > > Okay. Do you think relicensing gnutls would be an option if libgcrypt could > > be relicensed? > Yes it would be an option. The original idea was to be GPL since openssl was > available for commercial programs. However I think we need some advocacy here. No, we won't change libgcrypt to LGPL. I know that the reasoning behind LGPLing the basic GNOME libraries. However if someone want's to get the benefit of encryption under GNOME he should play fair and GPL his software too. There are ways to work around this but I won't give hints on how to do this. Changing everything too LGPL would just help to boost proprietary software; given that GNOME is part of GNU I don't think that this is a good idea. Werner -- Werner Koch Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur g10 Code GmbH et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est. Privacy Solutions -- Augustinus