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

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.

>From this comment (and others) it looks like the poster has a
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/