OK, I'm including legal-discuss in this thread.  If someone from
legal-discuss could look over the issues/changes proposed in the
thread below and reply, I would appreciate it.  I have looked over:

http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html

The details on the proposed additions can be found in this thread
(this is in the middle, but it is where the start of the real details
appears):

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cayenne-dev/200608.mbox/[EMAIL
 PROTECTED]

Tiny URL of above if the link gets broken:  http://tinyurl.com/gsrr5

Thanks very much in advance.  Also, please include the Cayenne list
(reply-all) on any replies since I'm not subscribed to legal-discuss.

Thanks again!

/dev/mrg


On 8/31/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael,

Maybe you could ask on [email protected] and see what comes of it.

I think you're right in that there's a certain minimum level of
complexity required in the encryption algorithm before it qualifies.

Note that the "'specially designed' to use" part only applies to other
controlled encryption products.

On 8/30/06, Michael Gentry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if you aren't using Java encryption APIs?  The only thing I plan
> to add is modeler conveniences such that you can create your own
> encryption facilities.  (Someone can already write this for
> themselves, too.)  I'm not planning on checking in actual encryption
> code (I can't imagine ROT13 would be considered encryption these
> days).  I thought "product distributions that contain or are
> 'specially designed' to use cryptography" meant Cayenne as shipped
> would be actively using encryption as part of its operation (such as
> requiring OpenSSL for something).  Of course, I'm not a lawyer ...
>
> Thanks,
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> On 8/30/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 8/30/06, Michael Gentry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the link, Jean.  I'm about ready to get started on adding
> > > this feature.  The only encryption I'll include with Cayenne in ROT13,
> > > which is incredibly weak and anyone can encode/decode with:
> >
> > From my understanding, providing the ability to use encryption is
> > sufficient grounds to require registration.   I'm pretty sure that for
> > MyFaces we need to register simply because we use the Java encryption
> > apis.
> >
>

Reply via email to