Which were the poor claims? Easier if you point to specifics in the article (it's quite long).
yes, I disagree on the opposite "There is an inverse relationship between making a chip open and achieving security certifications"
-
-
that is a quote from the post, their initial OSS use is being reversed, somwehat criticized and it was poorly managed to begin with
-
Not really a reversal. No yubikey source has ever been open AFAIK. The applet loaded on Neo was badly managed 3rd party OSS.
-
incorrect, they took ownership of their fork https://github.com/Yubico/ykneo-openpgp …
-
They forked an OSS project and kept their fork open. PGPCard functionality in YK4 is unrelated code. Clearly stated in blog.
-
Just because a new product has same function as old one doesn't mean you have a moral obligation to open source code.
-
and who said they have any moral obligations, I didn't..they can do whatever they please.
-
Just making an argument that they never CLOSED any OSS code. Disingenuous to imply they did. Blog post makes this point.
-
I never said that they closed OSS code, no one is saying that. The post says other things which I quoted and consider inaccurate.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.