So I downloaded the source with hg, and built gvimd.exe with VC++. I see that vim only writes encrypted file with VimCrypt~01 version (I am looking at fileio.c) how do I get it to use VimCrypt~02 for writing new files.
I have another minor patch ready for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_strengthening which I need to test a bit. === Minor build fix for vc++ was to comment out this line, netbeans.c:369 // sock_errno = EINTR; // sock_errno is a function (not an l-value) in win32. Compile and run: nmake -f Make_mvc.mak debug=yes gui=yes PYTHON_VER=25 PYTHON=c:/python25 gvimd.exe file :X :abc :abc insert few lines :w :q > od -c file | head 0000000 V i m C r y p t ~ 0 1 ! w 323 o 003 0000020 320 ' 356 204 . 373 < & 006 211 0000032 thanks, mohsin. On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Tony Mechelynck <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17/05/10 02:04, Jordan Lewis wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Tony Mechelynck >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> 2. "In the public domain". >> </quote> >> >> This looks promising; but one part has a "note" in lawyerese and the >> other a "defined term" in quotes, let us see... ah, I think this >> clinches it, and since there is an "or" clause, no need (I think) to >> check the other: >> >> <quote> >> GTN "In the public domain" >> GSN This means "technology" or "software" which has been made >> available >> ML 22 without restrictions upon its further dissemination. >> Note Copyright restrictions do not remove >> "technology" or "software" from being "in the public domain". >> </quote> >> >> I believe that Vim is "in the public domain" within the definitions >> used in that document (but of course, IANAL, nor do I play one on TV). >> >> >> No, I don't think that Vim is "in the public domain" at all or even >> according to this document. The definition you quoted has the key phrase >> "without restrictions upon its further dissemination." Even the first >> clause of Vim's license agreement here >> http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/uganda.html#license requires >> distributing the license itself alongside of any part of Vim that you >> choose to distribute yourself. I believe that this requirement, although >> trivial, constitutes a restriction upon further dissemination, which >> removes it from the public domain classification. >> >> I am similarly NAL, though. >> >> - Jordan Lewis > > Well, isn't that clause there to ensure that further dissemination won't be > stopped, and that copyright restrictions (which expressly don't remove > software from the "public domain" as defined in that document) will be > obeyed? All open-source software has similar requirements about the license > being distributed together with it, it doesn't prevent further distribution. > > Oh well, IANAL, YANAL, I suppose that's the kind of red tape which means > Bram had maybe better find a friendly Dutch lawyer knowing about cryptology > software distribution out of Amsterdam. > > > Best regards, > Tony. > -- > `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to > its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are > forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how > holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --" > > -- > 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 > -- 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
