Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:24:05 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG, openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org Subject: Re: OpenSSH protocol 1.6 proposal Message-ID: <20000103142405.C6173@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <87g0wfmht0.fsf@sheikh.hands.com>; from phil@hands.com on Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:00:11PM %2B0000 References: <20000101235721.A15256@alcove.wittsend.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001020047520.36184-100000@green.dyndns.org> <20000102061545.A1691@rumpole.bohemians.lexington.ky.us> <20000102151208.A21548@folly.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <87g0wfmht0.fsf@sheikh.hands.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:00:11PM +0000, Philip Hands wrote: > Markus Friedl <markus.friedl@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> writes: > > > On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 06:15:48AM -0500, David Rankin wrote: > > > Speaking completely without facts, I am personally skeptical about > > > enhancing the 1.x protocol when all of the standards processes are > > > focused on getting 2.0 out the door. That said, I am willing to be > > > convinced on the matter. > > > > i have put the latest revisions of my SSH 1.6 patches to > > http://wwwcip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/~msfriedl/openssh/ > > Quick question. Does this fall foul of this clause in the license: > > Any derived versions of this software must be clearly marked as > such, and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol > description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other than > "ssh" or "Secure Shell". IANAL - but in my interpretation, no. It stays compatible; it just can negotiate higher security. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000103142405.C6173>