* Andrew Dunstan (andrew@dunslane.net) wrote:
> You forgot to mention that we'd actually like to get away from being
> tied closely to OpenSSL because it has caused license grief in the
> past (not to mention that it's fairly dirty to manage).
While I agree with this sentiment (and have complained bitterly about
OpenSSL's license in the past), I'd rather see us implement this
(perhaps with a shim layer, if that's possible/sensible) even if
only OpenSSL is supported than to not have the capability at all. It
seems highly unlikely we'd ever be able to drop support for OpenSSL
completely; we've certainly not made any progress towards that and I
don't think forgoing adding new features would make such a change any
more or less likely to happen.
Thanks,
Stephen
