Oh I see.
OK == arbitrary private institutions with no representative or ideological
constraints other than the limit of the law. (And even then...)
Not OK == institutions that are (in theory at least) representative of
nations/countries/states and that are (in theory at least) accountable to
the
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Pierre DELAAGE wrote:
> ...
>>> The difference is important :
>>> in an association, the openssl organization WOULD REQUIRE some
>>> constraints on its MEMBERS.
>>>
>>
>> We are discussing self-imposed constraints on the Foundation's
>> acceptance of funds from var
Dear Mr Bohm,
Some answers in the text :
Le 30/05/2014 23:52, Jakob Bohm a écrit :
Dear Mr. Delaage,
You are getting things massively wrong, details inline.
On 5/30/2014 11:03 PM, Pierre DELAAGE wrote:
Dear Gentlemen,
I am taking this conversation not from the beginning, as it seems to be
now
On 5/29/2014 5:18 AM, Shunmugavel Krishnan wrote:
Hi,
I am planning to upgrade open SSL in my operating system(RHEL). I have
applications running in the system, i.e. Tomcat web application, Web server,
Message broker etc. Do i need to check for compatible issues before i go
with the upgrade. Tha
Dear Mr. Delaage,
You are getting things massively wrong, details inline.
On 5/30/2014 11:03 PM, Pierre DELAAGE wrote:
Dear Gentlemen,
I am taking this conversation not from the beginning, as it seems to be
now quite long.
Of course I understand various moral aspects of the discussion, no doub
Dear Gentlemen,
I am taking this conversation not from the beginning, as it seems to be
now quite long.
Of course I understand various moral aspects of the discussion, no doubt
about that.
But I really think that Openssl acts as a kind of apolotical foundation,
and NOT as an association.
Th
On 5/30/2014 12:24 AM, Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
...
The only way to to avoid any political overtones in such a situation (if
that really is your intention, because "doing the right thing" is not an
apolitical notion) is to blindly accept all comers or refuse all comers.
(Subject to the obvious out
On 5/30/2014 12:03 AM, Dave Thompson wrote:
From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org On Behalf Of Jakob Bohm
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 13:04
On 5/25/2014 2:22 PM, Hanno Böck wrote:
Some clients (e.g. all common browsers) do fallbacks that in fact
can invalidate all improvements of later tl
I am curious how you would reconcile your two insinuations;
1. that it is a political act to accept donations form a party that has a
particular nationality (or with this or that underlying ownership), even if
that party does so with explicit knowledge that a fundamental condition of
acceptance is
Hi,
I'm actually testing this with openssl 1.0.1, which explains the
behavior. I misunderstood what you where saying about openssl 1.0.1
being "not clever".
Looks like I'll have to wait for openssl 1.0.2 being rolled out to all
my clients, or do a hard transition to the new CA, meaning some clien
10 matches
Mail list logo
