|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Message-ID: <39C7C102.13581684@caveosystems.com> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:39:46 -0400 From: Rich Salz <rsalz@caveosystems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@openpgp.net> Cc: cryptography@c2.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > the OpenSSL project was not accepting code from US sources. Has this policy changed? Yes. The various members of the openssl-core team either agree that the current regulations remove their concern; or feel that even though there are issues it's not worth dealing with now US contributions can be submitted. They just have to be good enough to be accepted. :) Multiple interoperable implementations are usually a good thing. But when the talent pool is so small, and the (perceived? :) importance of the product is so great, I agree that the open source community is best served by rallying around a single implementation. Simpson's original note, asking for reviewers of the NSS code, can be seen as a proof point of this. There are plenty of closed-source SSL/TLS/etc implementations for interop testing. Flogging one of my own personal horses, the integration of CDSA and OpenSSL (being started by Intel) will be a very good thing. /r$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |