Re: LYNX-DEV SSL for Lynx 2.8

[T.E.Dickey]

> 
> > 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.
well, I won't argue - it'd take a bit of work to determine where the actual
threshold applies, and I've dealt with enough 'security' types to know that
rational discourse does not get anywhere.
 
> __Henry

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey