Re: IPSec in 2.5 Kernel?

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Ken Bantoft wrote:

> Nothing has stopped anyone from forking FreeS/WAN into something like, 
> say, Super FreeS/WAN, and including code that Hugh Daniel and John Gilmour 
> don't agree with - like NAT Traversal, and 1DES.  I've done it, you can 
> do it, we can all do it.

Just to clarify things a bit.
The fact that no one has grabbed development of (GPLed!) freeswan to
make a "tainted" version served only one interest: freeswan. The fact
that for instance RedHat hasn't taken up freeswan and tainted it, even
though they could, is something they only did for the freeswan folks.

Also Ken, you have done it, because you're Canadian. Your fixes can be 
backported to the main tree. That is a crucial difference with RedHat
adding freeswan, and then starting to fix bugs in it. 

Then again, starting from scratch once in a while is a proven development
method :)

Paul