Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected]> writes: > I welcome suggestions for improved text. I agree that the intersections > of the various licenses can be a bit confusing.
I guess it will be easier when we have moved to LGPL. Then it's going to take some effort to write a perl program which use these bindings and violate the licensing terms. (With the GPL, I'm actually not sure myself under which circumstances the perl program would have to be GPL:ed). > Section 6.2.11 of http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html > actually lists them twice. Ooops. Fixed now. > My problem with this is that i then have to handle the case where the > user invokes process() without having remembered to set a key. Can't you just raise some error ? You'd need to have some flag to remember if it's been initialized, but you need that anyway for the is_encrypt method, right? > I'm actually not enforcing any of these constraints in the perl code -- > they'll just crop up if the user passes the wrong data down to the > library underneath. That seems a bit dangerous. I thought the principle was that it shouldn't be easy to write perl code which triggers some assertion failure in some C routine. > interesting -- is GCM part of nettle itself, or do you think i should > implement it in the perl wrapper? I didn't see any mention of GCM in > the online docs. It's in the CVS version of Nettle, but not yet in any release. Maybe most of the discussion was private rather than on this list? Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
