On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:52:29 -0500, Jeremy Hylton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe some ambitious PSF activitst could contact Roskind and Steve
Kirsch and see if they know who at Disney to talk to... Or maybe the
Disney guys who were at PyCon last year could help.
I contacted Jim. His response
I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing
md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a
search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem is
deciding what/how/whether to include the openssl md5 implementation
sources so that win32 can use
Jeremy writes:
Unfortunately a license that says it is in the public domain is
unacceptable (and should be for Debian, too). That is to say, it's
not possible for someone to claim that something they produce is in
the public domain. See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225
Not quite
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I personally can't see how taking the reasonable interpretation of a
public domain declaration can lead to any difficulties, but then,
IANAL.
The ultimate question is whether we could legally relicense such
code under the Python license, ie. remove the PD declaration, and
On Feb 11, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
G'day again,
From: Gregory P. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing
md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a
search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem is
G'day,
From: Bob Ippolito [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Feb 11, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
Given that Python is already dependant on openssl, it makes sense to
change
md5sum to use it. I have a feeling that openssl internally uses md5,
so this
way we wont link against two
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
The md5.h/md5c.c files allow copy and use, but no modification of
the files. There are some alternative implementations, i.e. in glibc,
openssl, so a replacement should be sage. Any other requirements when
considering a
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 21:30 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:15 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
[...]
One possible alternative would be to bring in something like PyOpenSSL
http://pyopenssl.sourceforge.net/ and just
On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 21:30 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:15 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
[...]
One possible alternative would be to bring in something like PyOpenSSL
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 23:13 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 21:30 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote:
[...]
Only problem with this, is pyopenssl doesn't yet include any mdX or sha
modules.
My bad, how about M2Crypto
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 17:15 +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing
md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a
search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem is
deciding what/how/whether to include
The md5.h/md5c.c files allow copy and use, but no modification of
the files. There are some alternative implementations, i.e. in glibc,
openssl, so a replacement should be sage. Any other requirements when
considering a replacement?
Matthias
I believe the plan for md5 and sha1 and
12 matches
Mail list logo
