Hi,

Saw the discussion going on.. I'm really looking forward to help. I
thought I'd chime in to clarify some issues..

> o I'm very puzzled by the differences between HAVE_POLARSSL_GPL and without
> it, as it seems the API and all sorts of stuff differences. Is this
> documented anywhere? In fact, I'm a bit sad to see that polarssl seems
to be
> even worse than the other SSL libraries in the docs department and I
fail to
> find *ANY* docs for *ANY* function calls? Am I just not looking at the
right
> places? The web site seems to indicate that polarssl is available as
GPL or
> proprietary licenced but I can't see anything about them not having
the same
> API or functionality?

I'm not so happy about the define made. The BSD version of PolarSSL was
made for migratory purposes only and is not maintained. The GPL version of
PolarSSL is actually the only actively developed version, so I would be
very reluctant to use the BSD version.

Documentation is currently only available in source doc format
(http://www.polarssl.org/source_code) and the example programs. A more
thorough documentation is under development.

There is NO difference between the proprietary licensed and GPL licensed
version.

> o If HAVE_POLARSSL_GPL is not defined, what does x509parse_cert_info()
return?
> Isn't that allocated memory that need to be freed somehow and thus your
> patch introduces a memory leak?
As stated above, I would be reluctant to support the old version.

> o Speaking of version, is there really no way (build time or run time) to
> figure out what PolarSSL version that is used?
You have a good point. I will rectify that in the next version (at least
for build time!). This has never been an issue before.

Best regards,
Paul Bakker
PolarSSL Maintainer

-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
Received on 2010-05-06