From: Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donovan Baarda wrote:
This patch keeps the current md5c.c, md5module.c files and adds the
following; _hashopenssl.c, hashes.py, md5.py, sha.py.
[...]
If all we wanted to do was fix the md5 module
If we want to fix the licensing issues with the md5
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 10:06:24AM +0100, Martin v. L?wis wrote:
Donovan Baarda wrote:
This patch keeps the current md5c.c, md5module.c files and adds the
following; _hashopenssl.c, hashes.py, md5.py, sha.py.
[...]
If all we wanted to do was fix the md5 module
If we want to fix the
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 22:53 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
fyi - i've updated the python sha1/md5 openssl patch. it now replaces
the entire sha and md5 modules with a generic hashes module that gives
access to all of the hash algorithms supported by OpenSSL (including
appropriate legacy
fyi - i've updated the python sha1/md5 openssl patch. it now replaces
the entire sha and md5 modules with a generic hashes module that gives
access to all of the hash algorithms supported by OpenSSL (including
appropriate legacy interface wrappers and falling back to the old code
when compiled
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Isn't the PSF somewhere in between? I mean, in theory we are supposed
to be tracking stuff, but in practice there's no contributor agreement
for CVS committers ala Zope Corp.'s approach.
That is not true, see
http://www.python.org/psf/contrib.html
We certainly don't have
At 12:57 AM 2/12/05 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I personally can't see how taking the reasonable interpretation of a
public domain declaration can lead to any difficulties, but then, IANAL.
The ultimate question is whether we could legally relicense such
code under the
On Feb 11, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
G'day again,
From: Gregory P. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing
md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a
search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem is
G'day again,
From: Gregory P. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing
md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a
search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem is
deciding what/how/whether to include the
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I personally can't see how taking the reasonable interpretation of a
public domain declaration can lead to any difficulties, but then,
IANAL.
The ultimate question is whether we could legally relicense such
code under the Python license, ie. remove the PD declaration, and
At 02:09 AM 2/12/05 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Isn't the PSF somewhere in between? I mean, in theory we are supposed to
be tracking stuff, but in practice there's no contributor agreement for
CVS committers ala Zope Corp.'s approach.
That is not true, see
At 03:46 PM 2/11/05 -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
If Larry is correct, it isn't legally possible for an individual in
the US to disclaim copyright, regardless what they may say or sign.
The danger then is that accepting software that purports to be free of
copyright can come back to bite you, if the
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:54:27PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
Are there any potential problems with making the md5sum module availability
optional in the same way as this?
The md5 module has been a standard module for a long time; making it
optional in the next version of Python isn't
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 08:37, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
The md5 module has been a standard module for a long time; making it
optional in the next version of Python isn't possible. We'd have to
require OpenSSL to compile Python.
I totally agree.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 08:37:21AM -0500, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:54:27PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
Are there any potential problems with making the md5sum module availability
optional in the same way as this?
The md5 module has been a standard module for a long
Donovan Baarda writes:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
The md5.h/md5c.c files allow copy and use, but no modification of
the files. There are some alternative implementations, i.e. in glibc,
openssl, so a replacement should be sage. Any other requirements when
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:55:02 +0100, Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently md5c.c is included in the python sources. The libmd
implementation has a drop in replacement for md5c.c. The openssl
implementation is a complicated tangle of Makefile expanded template
code that would be
Maybe some ambitious PSF activitst could contact Roskind and Steve
Kirsch and see if they know who at Disney to talk to... Or maybe the
Disney guys who were at PyCon last year could help.
Matthias please could somebody give me a contact address?
Steve's easy enough to get
I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing
md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a
search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem is
deciding what/how/whether to include the openssl md5 implementation
sources so that win32 can use
Jeremy writes:
Unfortunately a license that says it is in the public domain is
unacceptable (and should be for Debian, too). That is to say, it's
not possible for someone to claim that something they produce is in
the public domain. See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225
Not quite
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
The md5.h/md5c.c files allow copy and use, but no modification of
the files. There are some alternative implementations, i.e. in glibc,
openssl, so a replacement should be sage. Any other requirements when
considering a
On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:15 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
The md5.h/md5c.c files allow copy and use, but no modification of
the files. There are some alternative implementations, i.e. in glibc,
openssl, so a replacement should be sage. Any other
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 21:30 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:15 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
[...]
One possible alternative would be to bring in something like PyOpenSSL
http://pyopenssl.sourceforge.net/ and just
On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 21:30 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:15 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
[...]
One possible alternative would be to bring in something like PyOpenSSL
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 23:13 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 21:30 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote:
[...]
Only problem with this, is pyopenssl doesn't yet include any mdX or sha
modules.
My bad, how about M2Crypto
Maybe some ambitious PSF activitst could contact Roskind and Steve
Kirsch and see if they know who at Disney to talk to... Or maybe the
Disney guys who were at PyCon last year could help.
Jeremy
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:37:50 -0500, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Matthias Klose]
A Debian
25 matches
Mail list logo
