From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ReDdH-00074k-Ml for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:30:31 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CA9E721C031; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:30:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412CC21C031 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:29:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7FF71B4004 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:29:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.696 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=1.203, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.599, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uPGWYLMTk9KN for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:29:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A0F1B4002 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:28:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ReDbk-0004Yo-J0 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:28:56 +0100 Received: from adsl-69-234-190-146.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net ([69.234.190.146]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:28:56 +0100 Received: from w41ter by adsl-69-234-190-146.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:28:56 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: walt Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Useflags for wget and curl: openssl versus gnutls? Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:31:40 -0800 Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-69-234-190-146.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111117 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: 2aee27ce-0153-454d-b89c-73961bb11d0d X-Archives-Hash: 753e151df707b730deeb3feee59f752b On 09/05/2011 02:06 PM, walt wrote: > A recent buglet in the wget package made me aware that openssl competes > with gnutls in certain ways. Even nss and libssh2 may be competing in > the same space, if maybe to a smaller extent. > > Anyone here really understand the tradeoffs involved in the use of these > useflags, and why I might want to choose one over the other? Months later, in another mailing list, I finally found a very practical reason for picking one over the other: lawyers :p The openssl project started under the aegis of the OpenBSD project, and thus their license is solidly in the BSD camp. The very name gnutls gives us a big hint about which license that project favors :) Apparently the nss license is at least not in bloody conflict with the GPL, though I've not read the fine print and don't intend to. Well, not until I've downed this delicious egg nog, anyway :)