Hi Darren, Tucker, and openSSH, wolfSSL is a dual licenced software. We have a Commercial option and a GPLv2 option. We provide support to both code sources and are an active part of the open source community. You can freely download our code from our website or visit our development branch on github. https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl. https://wolfssl.com/wolfSSL/download/downloadForm.php http://wolfssl.com/wolfSSL/License.html Regards, Kaleb Himes www.wolfssl.com kaleb at wolfssl.com Skype: kaleb.himes +1 406 381 9556 On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Zev Weiss <zev at bewilderbeest.net> wrote:> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 05:06:56PM +1000, Darren Tucker wrote: > >> I lost interest when the download required registration. >> > > I initially had the same reaction, but then discovered that (though it's > not at all obvious from looking at it) the "information" part of the form > on that page is actually optional; you can just select the desired .zip, > check the "I agree to the GPL" box (assuming you do), click "download" and > it'll go right ahead and download. > > > Zev > > >
Kaleb Himes wrote:> You can freely download our code from our website or visit our > development branch on github. > > https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl.Good, but, where's your patch? And are you prepared to license your patch under BSD terms? //Peter
Hi openSSH, After having time to review our licensing model and perhaps play around with our product we were checking back to see what your thoughts might be. We also wanted to point out that we only desire to give end-users an alternative option to compiling with openSSL. End users who configure with the "--enable-wolfssl" option would need to consider licensing. That would be a part of their project evaluation phase. Any patch we submit to you would retain your licensing model. Your feedback is appreciated, Kind regards, Kaleb Himes www.wolfssl.com kaleb at wolfssl.com Skype: kaleb.himes +1 406 381 9556
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015, Kaleb Himes wrote:> Hi openSSH, > > After having time to review our licensing model and perhaps play around > with our product we were checking back to see what your thoughts might be. > > We also wanted to point out that we only desire to give end-users an > alternative option to compiling with openSSL. > End users who configure with the "--enable-wolfssl" option would need to > consider licensing. > That would be a part of their project evaluation phase. Any patch we submit > to you would retain your licensing model.Hi, I'm not opposed to making OpenSSH play nicer with non-OpenSSL crypto libraries, but I am worried that attempts to do so could yield a worse #ifdef maze than we already have. Microsoft will need to figure out how to handle crypto in their port of OpenSSH since they'll likely be using CryptoAPI instead of OpenSSL, so perhaps there is an opportunity to find some nice way of abstracting out all the BIGNUM, RSA, DSA, EC*, etc out that suits you both (and cleans up core OpenSSH along the way). -d