Joachim Strömbergson <[email protected]> writes: > IANAL, but License 1 for OCB should be very much in line with nettle: > http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm > > The problem I have with it is that it specifies Open-Source _Software_ > implementations. Since I work on open source HW implementations I would > like to do OCB and that limitation is a bit of a problem.
I also noticed that, but it's an unlikely problem for nettle. In theory I guess one could tart from a C implementation in nettle and translate it to verilog/vhdl code for a hardware design, but I suspect that's not a good way to do it. I see another potential problem. We allow proprietary programs to link with Nettle (under LGPLv3 terms). As far as I understand, such a program can't be sold or distributed without negotiating a separate patent license. Which seems a bit contrary to the spirit og the LGPL. But I don't fully understand the implications of the patent language in the GPLv3, section 11. Is the extra patent license requirement a problem for LGPL distribution of Nettle? Or does it mean that it's only a problem for the party distributing the proprietary (or free but non-public) stuff, who must arrange that his/her patent license is properly extended to comply with the GPLv3 text? > OCB seems to be a very nice alternative/completent to GCM and CCM. How does it compare to EAX, which is also very nice and simple. Is OCB faster than EAX? (I haven't yet digested the definition of OCB). 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
