hello Anthony,
On Monday 12 December 2005 20:52, Anthony Green wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 20:48 +1100, Raif S. Naffah wrote:
would adding a second Provider --that supplies the strong stuff;
i.e. ciphers, modes, padding, etc..-- living in its own package
sub-directory/hierarchy and
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 20:48 +1100, Raif S. Naffah wrote:
would adding a second Provider --that supplies the strong stuff; i.e.
ciphers, modes, padding, etc..-- living in its own package
sub-directory/hierarchy and eventually (when the segmentation of
Classpath into multiple jars occur) be
On Monday 12 December 2005 01:45, Anthony Green wrote:
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 15:19 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
If there are situations where you are not able to (re)distribute
the GNU Classpath source code and/or follow the the BIS/ENC
notification procedures as done by the various
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 20:07 -0800, Casey Marshall wrote:
On Dec 8, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Anthony Green wrote:
My only concern is there be some trivial mechanism to generate a US
export-friendly version GNU Classpath, like..
$ configure --disable-munitions
Good point. We should have a
Hi Anthony,
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 03:47 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
You're missing my point, which is that _I_ have a requirement to
redistribute GNU Classpath with no export-restricted software. What's
good enough for the FSF is not good enough for me. It would nice if
there was a
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 12:40 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
As far as I know even the hooks fall under this. Although I am not
against having some configure options to put parts of the core library
into standards.omit I don't think it is really needed. When the first
parts of GNU Crypto was merged
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 13:50 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
All I was saying is that it isn't a necessity for
GNU Classpath as a project, or people redistributing GNU Classpath as
Free Software.
I'm being told that there are situations where this second part is not
true, which is why I need to
Hi Anthony,
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 05:38 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 13:50 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
All I was saying is that it isn't a necessity for
GNU Classpath as a project, or people redistributing GNU Classpath as
Free Software.
I'm being told that there
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 15:19 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
If there are situations where you are not able to (re)distribute the GNU
Classpath source code and/or follow the the BIS/ENC notification
procedures as done by the various GNU/Linux distros to distribute binary
derivatives of GNU
9 matches
Mail list logo
