On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, James Vega wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:50:36AM -0400, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Ben Fritz <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Is this going to introduce any export law worries if included?
> >
> > My general thought would be that it would be much easier to include
> > the patch if it could be reworked to use some commonly-available,
> > external crypto library (thus Vim doesn't contain crypto software,
> > so isn't exporting crypto). (e.g. use OpenSSL or ...well, OpenSSL.)
>
> There's also libgcrypt, which doesn't have OpenSSL's problem of being
> GPL incompatible.
>
<offtopic class="IMO">For certain values of 'problem'. (my BSD-license
preference reared its head apparently)</offtopic>
Googling { OpenSSL GPL } came up with this explanation:
http://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html
and the OpenSSL FAQ:
http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2
both of which are slightly hand-wavy about it. (Roughly: on most Linux
and BSD distributions, it's okay, because it can be considered "an
operating system library"; other systems, not as clear-cut.)
I thought there was a widely-used GNU crypto library, but the first
result in googling { crypto library } was the decidedly not-libgcrypt
'GNU Crypto' (now part of 'GNU Classpath'), written in Java(?!).
Yes, libgcrypt is a good choice, too. (Just couldn't remember what it
was called.)
--
Best,
Ben
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
vim_dev+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words
"REMOVE ME" as the subject.
