On 18 Jan 2010, at 19:34, Nathan Stott wrote: > This stack overflow answer suggests that this is not CC-By-SA: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/244898/wikipedia-pseudocode-and-ip > While I'd agree that there are cases where that is indeed the case - I think you are not doing justice to this specific case - and which is fairly gray. It does 1) not pass the test that it is the the only and essential means to accomplish a task (compare that code to the original NIST code) - nor 2) does it pass the 'impossible to write differently' test. And keep in mind that outside the US the barrier is set differently.
So I think you want to treat this as neither black or white - but look at the context - and thus keep in mind the likely intentions of the wikipedia authors along with the risk/reward profile in this specific case (easy to swap, used rarely, ASF does not make any money, etc). Or simply 'punt' - and swap in the IEFT code. Thanks, Dw http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
