"They should be contributing their changes back to OpenSSL versus forking".
I suppose that this attitude comes from people who think the fork happened solely because of Heartbleed, when the real reasons are a little more intricate[0] but the straw that broke the camels back was the discovery that OpenSSL had known about certain bugs and let patches to fix them rot in their bug tracker for years. It's hard to contribute changes back when a project won't take patches.
OpenSSL could have taken LibreSSL's changes if they wanted to, it's all public in the OpenBSD source tree, but they haven't.
Comments
I suppose that this attitude comes from people who think the fork happened solely because of Heartbleed, when the real reasons are a little more intricate[0] but the straw that broke the camels back was the discovery that OpenSSL had known about certain bugs and let patches to fix them rot in their bug tracker for years. It's hard to contribute changes back when a project won't take patches.
OpenSSL could have taken LibreSSL's changes if they wanted to, it's all public in the OpenBSD source tree, but they haven't.
[0] http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/origins-of-libressl
Great write-up. Thanks for sharing. :-)