From: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 11:55:34 PST
To: kipp@warp.mcom.com (Kipp E.B. Hickman)
Subject: Re: skronk
In-Reply-To: <9502081137.ZM28317@warp.mcom.com>
Message-ID: <199502081954.OAA22660@bwface.bwh.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	Will there be a commercially licensed version, so that things
built on SSL can be used in freeware and payware?  (Like the recently
announced commercial version of RSAREF)

	Actually, make that "When will there be.." since otherwise SSL
will be yet another standard one company uses.  Such standards are
less than useful.

Adam


Kipp wrote:

| > Please beat your lawyers to a pulp, until they make it useful for us.
| > If I can't create generally useful things with it, and share it with
| > thousands of others on the net for free, it's not going to be used by
| > the cypherpunk community.
| >
| > I recommend you put your reference implementation in the public domain
| > (except for the RSAREF component).  Or take Matt Blaze's crypto
| > offerings from AT&T as your model.
| 
| The implementation will be out very shortly (it's already done and working). It
| will be free for non-commerical usage, so hopefully most of the cypherpunks
| will be happy (if there is such a state of affairs mind you :^)
| 
| We won't be having any of the copy-leftish stuff that is in the
| RSAREF license - like not fiddling with the api, and having to give
| us back your hacks using it...Of course we want to hear about what
| people are doing with it (thats another purpose for the ssl-talk
| mailing list). 


-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
						       -Hume