On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 04:26:38AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> Do I think this sucks?  Of course I do.  Am I so silly as to think that
> because I think it sucks, I should just tell people lies about whether
> it's the way it is?  No -- I'd consider it unethical to deceive other
> people into violating the law.  Some people who rant about OpenSSH
> a lot seem to feel otherwise...

I hope you're not suggesting that I intend to deceive people, because
I really don't.

What I still don't understand is how, if all the legalities have
somehow remained the same, OpenBSD can make OpenSSH part of the
default 2.6 install (as they claim to) without causing a bunch of
people to break the law.

Either they install an ssh linked against RSAREF breaking licenses, or
they install an ssh linked against RSA breaking patents within the US,
and though I've read enough about this to know better, I'd really
hoped there'd been some loophole found.

Oh well, I was deluded, whatever. OpenSSH still beats F-Secure ssh in
the uid handling business.

Again, back to the point actually relevant to this list: whom do I
contact regarding the addition of OpenSSH to the NetBSD port tree?

       ~ g r @ eclipsed.net