3 ms·
Maybe they should just fork it completely, keep only the most used stuff, and call it OpenTLS - the "clean" alternative to OpenSSL. Then push for it to get acce
by higherpurpose 13y ago
Maybe they should just fork it completely, keep only the most used stuff, and call it OpenTLS - the "clean" alternative to OpenSSL. Then push for it to get accepted in server software. It would be kind of like the OpenOffice/LibreOffice situation.
Although if they're going to embark on such an endeavour, maybe it would be best to also rewrite it completely in a memory safe language like Rust (but in a year or two, after Rust becomes more mature).
- edwintorok 13y agoIt wouldn't help if they create another project based on OpenSSL code, because that will inherit OpenSSL's license that everybody hates, and wouldn't necessarily help other projects adopt it. It might also discourage other people from looking at / contributing code, when they could just improve another TLS library with a saner license that people actually want to use not just due to legacy.
- ams6110 13y agoI would venture to speculate that not many OpenBSD developers are familiar with Rust. They are familiar and very practiced at writing secure C.