On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:53:47PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote: >cgf wrote: > >>On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:27:06PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote: >> >>>cgf wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Andreas Seidl wrote: >>>> >>>>>However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread >>>>>http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01103.html >>>>> >>>>>I wonder if there are legal problems for RedHat to distribute the >>>>>ccrypt package? >>> >>>Next time, please keep it to yourself. >> >> >>I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy it if Red Hat was taken to task for >>something that could have been caught early, decided that cygwin wasn't >>worth the hassle, and pulled it from sources.redhat.com. >> > >No, I wouldn't, but I didn't intend on that being the only statement. >Consider this: The gpg which we distribute contains the *exact* same >cipher, AES{128,192,256}, as ccrypt plus gpg also has twofish & >blowfish.
The last time I checked, those two were also considered >"strong" encryption ciphers. Moreover, gpg can be used encrypt and >decrypt streams like ccrypt so, in a sense, they share similar >functionality. That's where I see the disconnect. Does this mean we >should ditch gpg as well or distribute a version with < 128bit ciphers? > Frankly, I don't see why we should disqualified ccrypt because someone >"thinks" it might be a problem. Is it *really* a problem? > >By his standard, RedHat has been breaking the law for years now, which >leads me to conclude that either: >A)The authorities don't care. >B)Red Hat doesn't care. >or >C)RedHat already has filed the necessary paperwork to allow it to >distribute binaries with strong encryption. Hmm. I guess I haven't been as diligent as I should have been. I've pulled gnupg from the distribution. >>But, hey, thanks for clarifying just whom I can trust to be watching out >>for the project's interests. > >Hey, you certainly have a right to your opinion. The reality is that I >was trying to paste some text and accidentally sent that message before >it was complete. Yeah, isn't that always a convenient excuse? >This reply contains some of the arguments I was planning on including >in that message to debunk his theory. Oh well, that's all water under >the bridge, believe what you want to believe... I suppose I'll never >get a gold star now ;-). Thanks. I will certainly believe what i want to believe. I'd have a hard time not doing that, in fact. cgf
