Dirk-Willem, Angel, et al, Sorry for the delayed response. I tried to post this earlier but it was held up by the mailing list manager. > On Feb 10, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Ángel González <keisial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 28/12/15 18:32, Kaleb Himes wrote: >> Greetings OpenSSH developers, >> >> wolfSSL now has a stable port for any interested we are nearly ready to >> submit a pull request to openssh-portable repository. >> >> For any and all interested we are ready for some alpha testing. Testing >> should be as easy as doing the following steps: >> > > It's already a big patch, and I note you have quite a number of cosmetic changes > (whitespace only) spread on it, which doesn't help reading them :( > > > I wouldn't recommend including such changes in an unrelated patch, or at least I would > split them in a standalone patch with just cosmetic changes.. We’re happy to make some changes for readability. > > > And then the license issue: > Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > >> 1) Fair to assume that you would expect (user and) distributor of a (binary or source) distribution of an openssh+wolfssl (As opposed to an openssh+openssl) to have agreed to BOTH the: >> >> a) the OpenSSH license >> >> -and- >> >> b) the GPL (or a commercial license entered into with WolfSSL) ? >> >> and that (at least) the GPL covers the entire derived work ? (the OpenSSH license does not). Correct. >> >> 2) And secondly (- are you, as the authors, all -) offering these OpenSSH modifications (i.e. the ‘patch) to the world (or to OpenSSH) as part of the work ? Our patch is made available under the OpenSSH license. GPL does not come into the picture unless someone is building in the GPL version of wolfSSL and distributing it. >> >> Or do you see the patch itself as something purely for OpenSSH; sufficiently free of entanglement to be redistributed solely under the OpenSSH license agreement ? Yes! We want to have it there for a number of reasons. Some notes on why we think users and developers of OpenSSH will benefit from having this conditional compile generally available: 1. We will support and maintain it for both commercial and open source users. We have to maintain it for our existing commercial customers anyway. 2. This will provide a readily available alternative to OpenSSL’s crypto. There’s a lot of reasons to have an alternative readily at hand. 3. We have FIPS 140-2 support available to those who need it. 4. We will be happy to consider feature requests from the OpenSSH community. For example: new ciphers, special build recipes, etc. >> >> Thanks, >> > (I understand Dirk meant OpenSSH, not OpenSSL) Thanks! I went ahead and corrected that above, for readability. > > This may seem like administrativia, but it's a very important factor for success. If for whatever reason you are not willing to something more compatible (like LGPL), I urge you to include a FOSS License Exception (a clause excepting from the viral to other free (libre) programs, like OpenSSH, without having to relicense it under GPL - while keeping WolfSSL code GPL). See https://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ as an example of this. We are super familiar with the FOSS exception, and plan to apply it to the combination of wolfSSL/OpenSSH. Will any of you guys be at RSA to discuss? Does it make sense to put together a group chat to hash out any further questions? Finally, how does the OpenSSH community make a decision on something like this? > Regards > Larry Stefonic www.wolfssl.com http://twitter.com/wolfSSL _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
