[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LYNX-DEV SSL for Lynx 2.8
From: |
T.E.Dickey |
Subject: |
Re: LYNX-DEV SSL for Lynx 2.8 |
Date: |
Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:45:26 -0500 (EST) |
> > I'm a little puzzled: there's nothing in the patches that imho should be
> > restricted/secure since all of the work is done in the (not included)
> > SSLeay library. Can anyone explain why Fote didn't simply add the ifdef's
> > to 2.7.2?
>
> I asked the same question a long time ago. I maintained that the hooks
> alone contained no crytographic code themselves, merely the code used by
> Lynx to hook it into the SSLeay library. (Hence the name hooks.) The
> SSL-specific stuff is already inside #ifdef USE_SSL blocks, so it wouldn't
> be hard at all to just supply Lynx with the patches intact and tell people
> to define USE_SSL and set up the libraries appropriately in their
> makefile. I think some people that probably didn't understand what I was
> saying yelled at me saying that I would be responsible for sending the
> development team to prison, or something like that. I don't believe them.
I've encountered that sort of thing before.
> There was also another group of people who said that that couldn't be done
> because the GPL prevented it. Apparently, there's a clause in the GPL
> that says something like if all features of a program are not available
> internationally, they can't be included. In my opinion, though, providing
> the hooks to link to the SSL library would not be a breach of this -
...
I'd be surprised if RMS's intent is that a few ifdef's would prevent
distribution in that sense. It's a little late for 2.8 (I don't really
want to change more than documentation & install issues right now), but I
think we should look for some advice to resolve this. (I'm about as fond
of patches as I am of compiler warnings - they're only acceptable until you
manage to get rid of them - asap).
> Maybe the best idea - at least for now - is to put something in the
> installation document or the makefile, or both, that clearly sets forth
> the whole idea behind SSL, how it can be added to Lynx, and where the
> patches are obtainable.
ok (I'll add a paragraph to INSTALLATION, if it's not already there).
> -Mox
>
> --
> Mark Mentovai
> address@hidden
> http://www.moxienet.com/
>
>
--
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
- Re: LYNX-DEV Do SureTrade, e.Schwab, or Wells Fargo Online work with SSL?, (continued)
- Re: LYNX-DEV Do SureTrade, e.Schwab, or Wells Fargo Online work with SSL?, Mark Mentovai, 1998/03/08
- Re: LYNX-DEV Do SureTrade, e.Schwab, or Wells Fargo Online work with SSL?, William Fulmor, 1998/03/08
- Re: LYNX-DEV Do SureTrade, e.Schwab, or Wells Fargo Online work with SSL?, David Woolley, 1998/03/15
- Re: LYNX-DEV Do SureTrade, e.Schwab, or Wells Fargo Online work with SSL?, William Fulmor, 1998/03/15
- Re: LYNX-DEV Do SureTrade, e.Schwab, or Wells Fargo Online work with SSL?, David Woolley, 1998/03/17
- Re: LYNX-DEV Do SureTrade, e.Schwab, or Wells Fargo Online work with SSL?, Jonathan Bobin, 1998/03/09
- Re: LYNX-DEV SSL for Lynx 2.8, David Woolley, 1998/03/10
Re: LYNX-DEV SSL for Lynx 2.8, T.E.Dickey, 1998/03/08
Re: LYNX-DEV SSL for Lynx 2.8, T.E.Dickey, 1998/03/08
Re: LYNX-DEV SSL for Lynx 2.8, David Woolley, 1998/03/11
Re: LYNX-DEV SSL for Lynx 2.8, Nelson Henry Eric, 1998/03/09