Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 16:22:35 -0700 From: Micheas Herman <m@micheas.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time to remove the GNUTLS option in the print/cups-client port Message-ID: <CAJw6ijnkPNF5--mZ_paX5bV1zF8JvY-ogJBpCYhp%2BENQJMM7KQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110828185007.1a6542a4@seibercom.net> References: <20110828140441.0b64c14c@seibercom.net> <CADLo8388oMC4MaG66W6cJEDYmU_jBc61LsSCAWoyKCEKb48brg@mail.gmail.com> <20110828201137.GA61262@guilt.hydra> <CAJw6ijmH314ey6%2BCTt7qoSGrfsQC%2BsCqHU4WLp-WVyedz6w84Q@mail.gmail.com> <20110828185007.1a6542a4@seibercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:04:42 -0700 > Micheas Herman articulated: > >> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> >> wrote: <snip> >> > >> > What exactly is the benefit of using GnuTLS instead of OpenSSL >> > anyway? >> >> The only benefit that I have heard of is that gnutls works around at >> least one of the patent issues that openssl has. >> >> (the probably both infringe on dozens, if not hundreds, of erroneously >> issued American patents) > > Erroneously issued in the sense that you are suppose to be paying for > the right to use it and are attempting to circumvent the law or issued > in the sense that someone else had all ready been issued a valid patent? Erroneously issued in that they were patenting already existing and in use technology. I have feelings about the usefulness of software patents but that has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of software patents that are subjected to aggres= sive reexamination fail to be upheld. The debate about software patents would probably be a lot different if this was not the case. In google vs oracle's java fight it looks like about 75% of oracles patents are going to get invalidated. (and those patents were picked for their strength.) >From my inexpert eyes it looks like google vs oracle is going to turn on CEO statements and actions more than the validity of the patents. > > Or, could it be that you feel someone should work for an indeterminate > amount of time, invest his/her monies and take the risks of developing a > new product and then be deprived of the right to make a return on their > investment just so you can use the article for free? I think I know the > answer to that one. This is a total non-sequitur. Most people being harmed by the insane patent mess are people that have invested his/her monies into products and become minimally successful. Any patents on openssl that have been granted in the last few years are obviously bogus. Whether RSA should have been granted patent status is something that reasonable people can disagree on. Patents on bubble sorts have clearly been issued in error. OpenSSL and GnuTLS both infringe on dozens of the later type of patents. > > -- > Jerry =E2=9C=8C > jerry+ports@seibercom.net > > Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. > Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. > __________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJw6ijnkPNF5--mZ_paX5bV1zF8JvY-ogJBpCYhp%2BENQJMM7KQ>