Re: Sammers eers Theft of Ben lauries Intellectual
Anonymous writes:
For the clueless or history deficient
C2 gots its start by purloining without compensation Ben Lauries Apache-SSL patches.... Sameer used these and then had the fucking gall to remove source from apache-ssl for the mod_ssl.c... all was rosy until Ralf releases a mod_ssl.c of his design... result?? C2's business worlwide took a nose dive...(layoffs etc) so now Sameer is trying to coopt Ralf's mod_ssl.c project (mark my words if Sameer gets his way the source for future verions will NOT be available no matter what he says now...) I seen it happen once so now when the litte sob trys it again I am blowing the whistle...(and retelling history openly) how about it Sameer are you now going to Sue the Mix network:) ?
the turds in Sameers Swimming pool p.s. to the clueless Jim Finder..Happy now asshole...?
No, I'm afraid I'm not. Could you offer either verifiable evidence of the above, or at least back up your accusation by signing your name? Either would be better than making an anonymous accusation that we have no way to verify. I'm sorry I wasn't privy to what ever went on behind the scene between C2NET, Ben, Ralf, Eric, etc., but I think I speak for most readers when I admit that I wasn't. Ben made a serious accusation that an important member of the open sources and crypto community has a hidden agenda to subvert the availability of open source crypto code. If it is false, let this stop. If it's true, then let's shout it far and wide, and deny them the support of the community. Anonymous and unverifiable accusations advance neither case All I've seen so far is Ben and Sameer throwing shit at each other, egged on by anonymous flamers, without anymone bothering to provider enough information for an outsider to decide how much of it should stick. Right now, all I can conclude is that there is plenty of shit to go around. Ben, would you please spell out your side of the story, and Sameer, would you do likewise so that we can figure this out? Anonymous, put up or shut up. Jim ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-- At 11:12 PM 12/24/98 -0600, jim finder wrote:
All I've seen so far is Ben and Sameer throwing shit at each other, egged on by anonymous flamers, without anymone bothering to provider enough information for an outsider to decide how much of it should stick.
Probably none of it should stick: This a dispute over forking the source. The community should support the fork that comes out with the most good code and sound design, rather than the fork that throws the most mud. And it probably will. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 8dYM2+HBC2DOTPZd47psy4oa6jQrtoVVJul6/wR6 4ld5hqkTmnsShU9zXzjoabREGevAsHFbEwShXZxGJ ----------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
jim finder wrote:
All I've seen so far is Ben and Sameer throwing shit at each other, egged on by anonymous flamers, without anymone bothering to provider enough information for an outsider to decide how much of it should stick. Right now, all I can conclude is that there is plenty of shit to go around.
As in any "campaign", it appears that mud and shit are the first things to get flung. I'm familiar with some background and some of the issues. Unfortunately, what we are faced with is the idea that one group wants to "own" the concept of an Open SSL project. This is certainly not the way to start a successful, open source, group-based project. People are pretty astute. If they feel that one project is a sham over the other, that it simply exists to stroke some egos or make sure that certain people's names are mentioned when SSL is discussed, then people aren't going to contribute. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski ||| jim@jaguNET.com ||| http://www.jaguNET.com/ "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"
A highly amusing ranting. I'm glad the poster chose to remain anonymous: they would surely be ashamed to attach their name to such a poorly written and grossly inaccurate message. Anonymous writes:
C2 gots its start by purloining without compensation Ben Lauries Apache-SSL patches.... Sameer used these and then
From this comment (and others) it looks like the poster has a
I think one of the greatest acheivements of open source projects in the last few years has been the acceptance of licensed in the BSD style. These allow for commercial use of the open source projects with minimal advertising clauses. This has lead to the acceptance of open source software as a valid model to create software that both benefits the community through free availability _and_ generals commercial spinoffs which themselves lead to a greater acceptance of the underlying free code. If a particular contributor to a BSD style project has a problem with this then they are free (in all senses) to start a project using a more restrictive license, such as the GPL. philosophical objection to commercial software. That is fine, and I'm sure that the poster will have a lot of fun attacking other software vendors.
had the fucking gall to remove source from apache-ssl
At the time, Verisign would not issue certificates for code available in source form (this is also why certificates from Verisign were not available for Apache-SSL). They now issue certificates for programs which are available in source form (subject to some restrictions, of course).
for the mod_ssl.c... all was rosy until Ralf releases a mod_ssl.c of his design... result?? C2's business worlwide took a nose dive...(layoffs etc)
I'm not sure that you understand the relationship between the development of Stronghold, the availablility of mod_ssl, and the employee losses in the Oakland (US) office. You should also remember that Stronghold is developed entirely outside the US in the UK office which has been consistently increasing it size over the same period: it is quite appropriate for an international cryptography company to arrange its staffing such that it is not affected by the US export restrictions. mod_ssl really hasn't been around long enough to have a serious affect on Stronghold sales. It is also very simplistic to assume that the availability of the free Apache SSL implementation would cause the majority of Stronghold customers to switch over: if that were the case, surely they would now be using Apache-SSL and would not have waited until mod_ssl was available? There is plenty of room for both free and commercial SSL servers.
so now Sameer is trying to coopt Ralf's mod_ssl.c project (mark my words if Sameer gets his way the source for future verions will NOT be available no matter what he says now...)
This does not make sense. mod_ssl is an independent project: whether or not Stronghold includes mod_ssl as source or binary would have no effect on the continuation of the mod_ssl project (in the same way that it makes no difference to Apache if Stronghold comes with Apache source, or to php if it comes with PHP source). things, so it
I seen it happen once so now when the litte sob trys it again I am blowing the whistle...(and retelling history openly)
If you had any validity I don't think you would post anonymously, and you would explain why your arguments should make sense, since to me they are highly simplistic and rather lacking in truth. Paul -- Paul Sutton, C2Net Europe http://www.eu.c2.net/~paul/ Editor, Apache Week .. the latest Apache news http://www.apacheweek.com/
participants (4)
-
James A. Donald -
jim finder -
Jim Jagielski -
Paul Sutton