[our company is experiencing SMTP problems with our ISP, so excuse any duplicate emails from me]
2009/11/16 Michael Van Canneyt <[email protected]>: > > If DPCrypt's license matches the FCL one, I see no reason not to > include it. It is already ok I think (MIT/BSD license without advocacy clause). From previous discussions in fpc-pascal mailing list, Marco said this will be fine for FCL. As for the location in FCL - that is for somebody closer to the FPC developers to decide, but I would imagine on the same level as fcl-fpcunit & fcl-db... etc. Example: fcl-dcpcrypt and not in fcl-base. If added to FCL, there are a few more changes I would suggest: * Replacing dcpcrypt's base64 unit with the one already in FCL. * Replacing sha1 unit with sha1 unit already in FCL. Or follow the same process as the next option. * Blowfish already exists in fcl-base... maybe remove that one and keep all encryption & cyphers in dcpcrypt directory. No need in having duplicate functionality all over the place. This would apply to existing blowfish and sha1 implementations. Should I rather move this discussion to fpc-devel mailing list, or will somebody here be able to add DCPCrypt to FCL? Whatever the decision, just let me know who I need to email the latest "fixed" dcpcrypt code to. -- Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/ -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
