91–100 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Deprecated” need not mean “insecure”.
Are you willing to take the risk? Deprecated might mean: There are known weaknesses. Or: Less reviewed code path.
One of the major improvements here: this finalizes the license change to Apache 2.0, which makes OpenSSL finally GPL-compatible. That removes one of the major reasons people had to avoid it. (Specifically, OpenSSL is now compatible with anything licensed "GPLv3", "GPLv3 or later", or "GPLv2 or later". It's not compatible with "GPLv2 only", but that's a relatively small amount of software.) Other major improvements: T…
It's incredible how much time and energy is spent on what license things use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do they hate APL?
User andinus provided the official explanation given by the openbsd project. On a more philosophical level, the more radical end of the BSD licensing champions such as openbsd are extremists, just like the FSF/GNU people on the other end of the spectrum. Both want a world where ultimately software copyright, not to mention software patents, doesn't exist, source is available for everything and you can use that source…
If anything the folks who want software copyrights and patents are the "extreme" POV, no?
I mean, on the hardware level we're talking about MOV instructions, eh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...wasn't the major reason to avoid it the shitton of vulns it has had compared to libreSSL!?
The “shitton of vulnerabilities” is a recent phenomenon, it’s not what prevented people from using OpenSSL.
It definitely should be the reason now!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
User andinus provided the official explanation given by the openbsd project. On a more philosophical level, the more radical end of the BSD licensing champions such as openbsd are extremists, just like the FSF/GNU people on the other end of the spectrum. Both want a world where ultimately software copyright, not to mention software patents, doesn't exist, source is available for everything and you can use that source…
"extremists"? Really? If anything the folks who want software copyrights and patents are the "extreme" POV, no? I mean, on the hardware level we're talking about MOV instructions, eh?
Edit: And now I see that in my grandparent post I wrote that the BSD and GPL people are extremists on opposite sides of the spectrum, which doesn't really match the above. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that, what I wanted to write was that they are both on the same end of the spectrum.
> 1.7 Versioning Scheme > The OpenSSL versioning scheme has changed with the 3.0 release. The new versioning scheme has this format: > MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH Yay. OpenSSL finally switches to semantic versioning. \o/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is where some BSD folks get frustrated by some GPL folks. Compiling code under BSD with code under GPL into the same binary is not _relicensing_. Each section of code still has the same license, and any binaries must abide by the intersection of the licenses. It is indeed the case that the intersection of GPL and BSD is equivalent to GPL and therefore allowed by the GPL, but the BSD license remains on the portio…
Wouldn't it be the union of the licenses, not the intersection? Provisions of one license wouldn't go away because they're not present in the other?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is where some BSD folks get frustrated by some GPL folks. Compiling code under BSD with code under GPL into the same binary is not _relicensing_. Each section of code still has the same license, and any binaries must abide by the intersection of the licenses. It is indeed the case that the intersection of GPL and BSD is equivalent to GPL and therefore allowed by the GPL, but the BSD license remains on the portio…
Wouldn't it be the union of the licenses, not the intersection? Provisions of one license wouldn't go away because they're not present in the other?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"extremists"? Really? If anything the folks who want software copyrights and patents are the "extreme" POV, no? I mean, on the hardware level we're talking about MOV instructions, eh?
Uh, maybe I should have worded that differently. I didn't mean "extremist" as a value judgement. Just someone being on the extreme end of the spectrum "all software should be free" vs. "all software should be proprietary and patented". Edit : And now I see that in my grandparent post I wrote that the BSD and GPL people are extremists on opposite sides of the spectrum, which doesn't really match the above. I don't kno…
(FWIW I think it's a high-dimensional manifold, not a spectrum. But I feel ya.) ;-)
> 1.7 Versioning Scheme > The OpenSSL versioning scheme has changed with the 3.0 release. The new versioning scheme has this format: > MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH Yay. OpenSSL finally switches to semantic versioning. \o/
That isn't semver
> Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
> MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, > MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and > PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes.
> Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format.
Seems like semantic versioning to me! At least the major, minor, and patch will mean something now.