Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday September 19 2016, @08:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the let's-rename dept.

Popular Bash shell script LetsEncrypt.sh, which is used to manage free SSL/TLS certificates from the Let's Encrypt project, has renamed this week to avoid a trademark row. This comes in the wake of Let's Encrypt successfully fending off Comodo, which tried to cynically snatch "Let's Encrypt" for itself.

LetsEncrypt.sh, written by Germany-based Lukas Schauer, is now known as Dehydrated. If you have scripts or apps that rely on pulling in his code and running it, they may stop working as a result of the name change. Dehydrated is developed independently by Schauer and is not officially affiliated with Let's Encrypt.

"This project was renamed from letsencrypt.sh because the original name was violating Let's Encrypt's trademark policy. I know that this results in quite a lot of installations failing but I didn't have a choice," reads the new Dehydrated README.

[...] Full disclosure: This article's author uses Let's Encrypt to provide HTTPS encryption for his personal websites. And you should use it too.

Our Previous Story: 800-Pound Comodo Tries to Trademark Upstart Rival's "Let's Encrypt" Name


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @11:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @11:26PM (#404034)

    Grow the f*ck up people, if the [powers that be in your country] want your porn browsing history they will get it from the source, not by tapping the link.

    As many things as possible should be encrypted to help cover those who need encryption the most. Not everything is about you, and that's a selfish viewpoint. You seem to be using a straw man against privacy advocates by making it seem as if they're saying that it's highly probable that they as individuals are being or could be specifically targeted by the government, when in reality they tend to be more worried about activists, journalists, political opponents, lawyers, whistleblowers, etc.

    I don't know how much Let's Encrypt will help with this in practice, but the point I quoted is just silly.