Mozilla, License (again), PPG, GPGME
wk at gnupg.org
Sat Mar 9 16:52:01 CET 2002
On Sat, 09 Mar 2002 15:54:32 +0100, Ben Bucksch said:
> include Microsoft Outlook [Express], now that the future of the
> commercial PGP is unclear. (Outlook has such a large market share that
You mean the proprietary PGP. Wether a software is commcercial or not
has nothing to do with Free Software versus proprietary software. The
furture of PGP is not that unlcear: There is and will be no more
development for it. They have laid off all engineers working on PGP.
> OpenPGP needs to have a nice UI for it, if it ever wants to be a
> widely used standard. I know the security concerns, but I think they
Yes, definitely. Noone as volunteered to make GPA or any of the other
frontends a workable solution, so I fear that without a proper funding
there will be no good GUI in the near future. I know that this is
very important. I have a list of things in mind which should be
undertaken by further GPA (or whatever) development.
> My questions:
> * What's the state of PGG? I guess it's unusable by now?
> * (What's wrong with OO? - no answer required :). )
It needs to be done right and frankly OO is far older than what Brooch
claims to have invented. The IEEE Software had a good article on the
disadvantage of several OO approaches (look for something like "Why OO
does not sync with our thinking" about 2 years old)
> * Why GPL for GPGME? Werner, you say you want to use the lib for
> Mozilla, but you are surely aware of the license problems. What
> was your plan, or did you just "default" to GPL :), planning to
> think about the problem later?
Now that Mozilla is dual licensed there is no more problem to use it.
If you want to use in addtion a proprietary plugin, you may not be
able to do so. In theory I can still change the GPGME license but I
don't see a reason to endorse the use of proprietary software by doing
that. Mozilla is free and if someone wants a Flash plugin, he should
write a compatible plugin or even better use a standard vector format.
> * Mozilla has now partial S/MIME support, and Netscape claims that
> the underlying stuff is general enough for OpenPGP. As usual, they
> have no docs whatsoover. I haven't looked at it myself.
What's wrong with enigmail? If you worry about performance problems
due to the fork/exec approach, this will be solved soon by a gpg
> * NAI worked on a Mozilla plugin last year, but the code was
> rejected. IMHO, it looked better than the Netscape S/MIME stuff.
Although I am much in favor of OpenPGP, I can tell you that GPGME does
support S/MIME (well, the CMS part).
More information about the Gnupg-devel