Re: LYNX-DEV SSL for Lynx 2.8

[Personal]

Nelson Henry Eric <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I'm a little puzzled:  there's nothing in the patches that imho should be
>> restricted/secure since all of the work is done in the (not included)
>> SSLeay library.  Can anyone explain why Fote didn't simply add the ifdef's
>> to 2.7.2?
>
>*Just putting the hooks* in there would destroy Lynx because it would no
>longer be freely available to anyone in the world.  Plus anyone who did it
>and indiscriminately distributed Lynx might land in prison for a LONG time.
>Let's just keep hoping the US government will come to its senses someday.

Right. The US ITAR/(what is it now, EAR?) regulations have been interpreted
as prohibiting the distribution of software with SSL _HOOKS_ in it. I for
one would feel very uncomfortable to see it in Lynx (as much as I would
love to be able to) and would likely have to deny download access to Lynx
source from our site (not a good thing to consider!) to protect the college
if SLL hooks were included. I noticed in the Netscape Public License, that
they have removed all SSL from the code that will be made publicly availible,
persumably for similar reasons.

Again, let me emphasize, that I could not continue to support public access
to the Lynx Source from www.slcc.edu if SSL hooks are added to the code.

Scott

Scott McGee: Salt Lake Community College Webmaster | When in danger,
___________________________________________________| or in doubt,
Email: address@hidden (Scott McGee)         | run in circles,
Web:   http://www.slcc.edu/infotech/webmaster.html | scream and shout.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the College. Trust me!