>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Geoff Thorpe
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 5:47 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>If your point is that the "openssl authors" don't want to change the
>license because Eric (pr
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kyle Hamilton
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:26 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>On 4/17/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The original copyright holde
Hi,
Anyone can help me on this issue? I saw there are some mails about "unable to
get certificate CRL". Seems like a bug? I am using openssl-0.9.8a. Thanks!
Roger
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zhang,
> Long (Roger)
> Sent: Monday,
Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As if it weren't annoying enough to see the license getting (re)debated,
> despite the fact there's fsck all that can be done about it as things
> stand,
What we really need is to somehow get some of Eric Young and Tim
Hudson's time in person, mayb
On 4/17/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> The original copyright holder gave the FSF this right when they used
> the GPL on their code, because the GPL isn't simply a statement of
> principles, it is a copyrighted document of the FSF that the original
> copyright holder only has
On April 17, 2006 06:48 pm, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Since SSLeay is part of OpenSSL, Eric Young is by definition an
> OpenSSL author.
Egads man, would you please stop twatting on like this?! This is truly
truly painful to watch. As if it weren't annoying enough to see the
license getting (re
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:02:49 -0700, "Ted
Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tedm> >Not at all, I spoke for myself (I do believe I said that
tedm> >clearly enough), and only reported what I have seen happening
tedm> >within the group.
tedm>
tedm> Which isn't re
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard
>Levitte - VMS Whacker
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:20 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>Not at all, I spoke for myself (I do believe I said that c
> > Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support the claim
> >that the FSF can
> >issue a variance for software whose copyright has not been
> >assigned to it?
> The original copyright holder gave the FSF this right when they used
> the GPL on their code, because the GPL isn't simply a stat
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:48:16 -0700, "Ted
Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tedm> Since SSLeay is part of OpenSSL, Eric Young is by definition
tedm> an OpenSSL author.
That's a matter of definition, and I don't agree. Eric hasn't written
one byte of OpenSSL
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Schwartz
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:47 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: RE: Licenses...
>
>
>>No, it is not. There is a problem, and that is why there is a
>>mechanism IN THE GPL ITSE
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard
>Levitte - VMS Whacker
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:41 AM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>on Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:44
> >That single project may itself link to many other
> >projects. That single
> >project could be the Linux kernel itself.
> So a single Linux system that is connected to the Internet which can
> link to every host on the Internet, can change the software licensing
> on every computer in the worl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:52:33 -0700, Tyler
MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tylerm> Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tylerm> > And here, you pretend to know everything that's going on behind the
tylerm> > scene. We (well, the OpenSSL core
Lutz et al:
ok we switched compilers to gcc 3.0.1, after a couple of trial tests , we
got pass :
1. make
but having problems with
2. make test
error as follows:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [/stub/Ossl/openssl-0.9.7i]# make test
Doing certs
eng1.pem => 7a9820c1.0
eng2.pem => 56e607f4.0
eng3.pem => 87
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:44:33 -0700, "Ted
Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tedm> If the OpenSSL authors (you included) wanted to change the
tedm> license you all would have done so, it's not like you don't have
tedm> write access to the source and cannot chang
Hi,
I saw a problem of unable to get certificate CRL. The program is as following.
It is changed from O'Reilly openssl book example 10-7. In the program,
/home/zhangl/openssl/test/ca1/newcerts/ca1cert.pem is my root self signed CA.
It signed a lot of certificates. 01.pem, 02.pem to 09.pem. Whi
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006, Chris Clark wrote:
> I'm having trouble compiling the current snapshot of OpenSSL under VC++.
>
> Configure and domasm are both successful, but when I run nmake I get
> the following result:
>
> Could anyone point me in the right direction?
>
It would help if you said whi
Try to run ms\do_ms instead of running ms\do_masm
-Daeoh
2006/4/17, Chris Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm having trouble compiling the current snapshot of OpenSSL under VC++.Configure and domasm are both successful, but when I run nmake I get
the following result:> nmake -f ms\ntdll.makMicro
19 matches
Mail list logo
