In message <1483487075.2464.59.ca...@hansenpartnership.com> on Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:44:35 -0800, James Bottomley <james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> said:
James.Bottomley> On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 12:19 +0100, Richard Levitte wrote: James.Bottomley> > β£There seems to be some confusion here. James.Bottomley> > James.Bottomley> > James, I understand the tpm engine as an external project, not part James.Bottomley> > of the OpenSSL source proper and not intended to be. James.Bottomley> > James.Bottomley> > However, openssl-dev@openssl.org is a list focused on the development James.Bottomley> > of OpenSSL proper. That makes it a bit odd to discuss the tpm engine James.Bottomley> > here. Largely off topic. James.Bottomley> James.Bottomley> Fair enough. You were cc'd since it's a modification of code used by James.Bottomley> openSSL, in case there was interest. Strictly speaking, that belongs in openssl-us...@openssl.org. The reason I point this out is that for code that isn't meant to be part of OpenSSL proper, the whole discussion about CLAs, licenses and whatnot is a red herring that belongs neither here not there. As long as you do stuff as a separate project, YOU (collective you) decide what license to use, let alone your contribution policy. Of course, I do recall that there was an attempt of patches to be applied to OpenSSL proper. That alone is subject to our license and our policies, if that's still interesting (I don't know if it is). If it is, that should be contributed as a separate patch, preferably as a github PR (sourceforge is entirely uninteresting to us). Me, I haven't really minded the discussion here, as long as it didn't become confusing. After all, it did spark some discussion around my STORE project ;-) Did I leave something out or is the situation clear? Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
