Sergei and other maintainers, IANAL, but I don't think that the PolarSSL FOSS exception is that useful in the eCos context - eCos itself might be OK is my read - but certainly not any developer's proprietary embedded application that it is linked with. I think you should carefully consider the licensing aspects here before making this an official eCos project. Regards, Paul. -- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ECOS] Re: PolarSSL for eCos Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 14:14:31 +0300 (FET) From: Sergei Gavrikov To: Max Seidenstücker CC: eCos Discuss Hi Max, [Added eCos Discuss to CC] On Thu, 2 May 2013, Max Seidenstücker wrote: > Hi Sergei, > > I am writing you because I saw posts that you successfully ported > PolarSSL to eCos already. > > For a research project we are currently using eCos and need a TLS1.2 > secured connection. So therefore we need to either update OpenSSL form > 0.9.6b to 1.0.1, which seems pretty difficult or find an alternative > SSL library. > > PolarSSL looks really promising, as it also has less ressource usage > than OpenSSL. > > I am very curious on how far you have come with the porting. That was a weekend hack only. As far I call correctly the porting process was straightforward, that GPL PolarSSL version had a few I/O stubs to overwrite and I have got HTTPS connection on eCos synthetic target. I had no further work with PolarSSL (and SSL for eCos) but, IMHO, the project was very promising SSL project ... and IT IS as thanking your e-mail I knew that PolarSSL team became to provide FOSS License Exception https://polarssl.org/foss-license-exception IANAL, but it looks like that we would use GPL PolarSSL 2.0 with that FOSS exception in eCos. If this so, you would register new eCos project http://ecos.sourceware.org/contrib.html open eCos Bugzilla entry (http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org) for the port and I hope you will find more hands for porting process then. But before to start I would get confirmation that PolarSSL FOSS License exception does cover the eCos License exception. Sergei