Hi Kern, > I am looking at the request you made (see below). First: yes, I will be > happy to consider your request, but have several questions: > > 1. What is wrong with the current SHA1 code/license? For me the license is > very much like a BSD license and I don't see a problem with it on the > license stand point.
The original concern that was brought up in 2012 was that RFCs are published under a licence that forbids modifications. I have now learned that code in newer RFCs is published under different conditions. I invite you to read the relevant thread on the debian-legal mailing list here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2017/11/msg00004.html The code you are using (apparently from RFC 3174) has seen some updates and was published in RFC 6234. How about using the new version? Simone: would that be ok for Fedora/Red Hat too? Regards, Carsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
