3 ms·

Looks like you created a bespoke license for your tool, which is your perogative but also means many people won't even consider using it.

MuffinFlavored 2y ago
Why would people consider using it over "regular WireGuard setup with opensshd somewhere"?
- betaby 2y ago
  Perhaps to use it as a jump host. Oftentimes running ssh via ssh is not that good performance wise.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dartos 2y ago
  I was wondering the same thing, but another comment on this post pointed one out. It’s clunky to distribute and rotate ssh keys, but much easier to do that with WireGuard credentials.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    I'm drawing a blank; why would it be easier to rotate wg keys than ssh keys? They're both asymmetric keys that fit in one line of text, which should be generated on the client and then have the public key uploaded to the server(s), and which can be dynamically loaded at runtime. If anything, I'd think ssh was marginally easier because it supports CAs out of the box and you can just have your auth system dynamically signing the user's certificate.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dpeckett 2y ago
And that's totally fine :). It's worth noting that as a derivative of the FSL/BSL in four calendar years everything will be released back to the community under the MPL-2.0. The shell implementation is already under the MPL-2.0 and worth a look at for anyone who's interested https://github.com/noisysockets/shell https://github.com/noisysockets/shell
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  > It's worth noting that as a derivative of the FSL/BSL in four calendar years everything will be released back to the community under the MPL-2.0. A 4-year-old version of security-critical software. You understand why this is less than compelling?
- nabla9 2y ago
  >It's worth noting that as a derivative of the FSL/BSL i Maybe, but we don't know until we hire a lawyer to check it out. And we don't. On the other hand, I don't think you can afford a lawyer to defend your bespoke license either. In either case, the license is meaningless.
  - dymk 2y ago
    Clearly not meaningless if you’re avoiding using it to avoid risk of infringement
    - nabla9 2y ago
      It's the same as no license.
      - dymk 2y ago
        It's a license that hasn't been reviewed by legal, which is not the same as no license.

MuffinFlavored 2y ago

Why would people consider using it over "regular WireGuard setup with opensshd somewhere"?

betaby 2y ago
Perhaps to use it as a jump host. Oftentimes running ssh via ssh is not that good performance wise.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dartos 2y ago
I was wondering the same thing, but another comment on this post pointed one out. It’s clunky to distribute and rotate ssh keys, but much easier to do that with WireGuard credentials.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  I'm drawing a blank; why would it be easier to rotate wg keys than ssh keys? They're both asymmetric keys that fit in one line of text, which should be generated on the client and then have the public key uploaded to the server(s), and which can be dynamically loaded at runtime. If anything, I'd think ssh was marginally easier because it supports CAs out of the box and you can just have your auth system dynamically signing the user's certificate.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dpeckett 2y ago

And that's totally fine :). It's worth noting that as a derivative of the FSL/BSL in four calendar years everything will be released back to the community under the MPL-2.0. The shell implementation is already under the MPL-2.0 and worth a look at for anyone who's interested https://github.com/noisysockets/shell https://github.com/noisysockets/shell

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
> It's worth noting that as a derivative of the FSL/BSL in four calendar years everything will be released back to the community under the MPL-2.0. A 4-year-old version of security-critical software. You understand why this is less than compelling?
nabla9 2y ago
>It's worth noting that as a derivative of the FSL/BSL i Maybe, but we don't know until we hire a lawyer to check it out. And we don't. On the other hand, I don't think you can afford a lawyer to defend your bespoke license either. In either case, the license is meaningless.
- dymk 2y ago
  Clearly not meaningless if you’re avoiding using it to avoid risk of infringement
  - nabla9 2y ago
    It's the same as no license.
    - dymk 2y ago
      It's a license that hasn't been reviewed by legal, which is not the same as no license.