On 03/28/2013 10:31 AM, Matt Caswell wrote:
On 27 March 2013 21:03, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote:
The OSF is not actually the one that would benefit from such a
licence, so the whole idea that it (or we) should pay for one seems
weird to me.
Well, I wasn't actually suggesting that the OSF
On 27 March 2013 12:04, Matt Caswell fr...@baggins.org wrote:
On 27 March 2013 11:52, Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com wrote:
Does Phil still teach at UC Davis? You could always ask him directly
for clarification or a waiver.
Hi contact details are on the web page describing the various
On 27 March 2013 21:03, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote:
The OSF is not actually the one that would benefit from such a
licence, so the whole idea that it (or we) should pay for one seems
weird to me.
Well, I wasn't actually suggesting that the OSF should pay for it
itself, merely that the OSF
On 6 February 2013 15:04, Steve Marquess marqu...@opensslfoundation.com wrote:
On 02/06/2013 09:43 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
There are actually two licenses. The second allows all software (even
closed), but only for non-military use.
I would say that's still a problem. For example, we could
Does Phil still teach at UC Davis? You could always ask him directly
for clarification or a waiver.
- M
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List
On 27 March 2013 11:52, Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com wrote:
Does Phil still teach at UC Davis? You could always ask him directly
for clarification or a waiver.
Hi contact details are on the web page describing the various license
options (and yes its a UC Davis email address). It would
There are actually two licenses. The second allows all software (even
closed), but only for non-military use.
I would say that's still a problem. For example, we could use OpenSSL on our
network to provide acceleration for public DoD sites. Is that military use?
Suppose it's for use on a
On 02/06/2013 09:43 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
There are actually two licenses. The second allows all software (even
closed), but only for non-military use.
I would say that's still a problem. For example, we could use OpenSSL on our
network to provide acceleration for public DoD sites. Is
At last month's Workshop on Real-World Cryptography at Stanford University,
Phil Rogaway released a new license for OCB, granting free use for all
open-source implementations.
http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license1.pdf
OCB is the fastest authenticated-encryption scheme that I know
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Ted Krovetz t...@krovetz.net wrote:
At last month's Workshop on Real-World Cryptography at Stanford
University, Phil Rogaway released a new license for OCB, granting free use
for all open-source implementations.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Ted Krovetz t...@krovetz.net wrote:
There are actually two licenses. The second allows all software (even
closed), but only for non-military use.
http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm
Thanks. Is some explanation of the non-military use
There are actually two licenses. The second allows all software (even closed),
but only for non-military use.
http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm
Does that make OCB any more acceptable?
-Ted__
OpenSSL Project
12 matches
Mail list logo
