I don't get the point of this fork. Usually when a project is forked, it means that people want to keep the code base but disagree with the way the project is managed.
After heartbleed everybody blamed OpenSSL's bloated code base and it became apparent that many contributions came from volunteers with very few financing.
By forking the project, LibreSSL will keep the problematic code legacy and split the community. Maybe I am missing something, but it looks like opportunism here...
> After heartbleed everybody blamed OpenSSL's bloated code base <
And this is exactly what they are fixing.
OpenSSL's response was to fix heartbleed and move on, not fixing the more broad problem of to much code cruft that led to the bug. IMHO they are right to fork it, OpenSSL's lack of reaction to this is a raise for concern. I am sure Theo( de Raadt) and its team can tackle this, making the code base much much leaner, reducing the risks of bugs similar to heartbleed. And there is really no excuse for OpenSSL to deny that.
Also i think OpenSSL has to much technical debt to be efficient in tackling a cleanup like this.
After heartbleed everybody blamed OpenSSL's bloated code base and it became apparent that many contributions came from volunteers with very few financing.
By forking the project, LibreSSL will keep the problematic code legacy and split the community. Maybe I am missing something, but it looks like opportunism here...