➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pitrou
Recipients daniel.urban, debatem1, dmalcolm, eric.araujo, exarkun, gdamjan, giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, heikki, jsamuel, lemburg, loewis, lorph, mcrute, pitrou, vstinner
Date 2010-09-18.23:05:17
SpamBayes Score 2.0708324e-10
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1284851113.3220.34.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <1284850462.96.0.244805154384.issue8998@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content 
> It is also not a convincing argument that new python libraries should
> use OpenSSL if possible just because that is what _ssl uses. Compiling
> Python with OpenSSL support has been optional because it puts
> additional restrictions on the PSF license. Spreading this restriction
> to the future crypto module (when we have a choice not to) doesn't
> make sense.

It certainly makes more sense than making Python depend on *several*
crypto libraries.
As for the licensing restriction, it doesn't seem to disturb many Python
users. It's the first time I see someone complaining about it.

This isn't meant to discourage any such efforts (I don't care about
which crypto library we use), but any proposal of using another crypto
library than OpenSSL should IMO include a migration proposal for the
_ssl module.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-09-18 23:05:19pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, lemburg, loewis, gregory.p.smith, exarkun, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola, gdamjan, lorph, heikki, eric.araujo, debatem1, dmalcolm, daniel.urban, mcrute, jsamuel
2010-09-18 23:05:18pitroulinkissue8998 messages
2010-09-18 23:05:17pitroucreate