Hacker News Reader

It's GPL 2 - https://polarssl.org/how-to-get#open-source

I'm not saying that's the nadir of licenses - but it's pretty good, no?

> I'm not saying [GPLv2 is] the nadir of licenses - but it's pretty good, no?

It's certainly "pretty good" compared to having no source code available at all. But when people talk about "liberal" licenses (aka permissive licensing), the GPL is not what usually comes to mind.

GPLv2 crypto will never dethrone OpenSSL

GnuTLS is LGPL and can be used alongside commercial applications. There's also Botan (BSD, C++), Bouncy Castle (MIT, Java).

Who should care if GPL is bad for a SSL library? First of all it needs to be correct and PolarSSL is the only one in this field. It is trusted, and it is fast enough.

I would never trust GnuTLS, NSS or OpenSSL over PolarSSL.

> Who should care if GPL is bad for a SSL library?

An entity which actually ships software?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com