On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:54:48AM +0000, Martin Mathieson wrote: > Re-reading the terms quoted by Guy, my impression is that its the algorithm > rather than the reference implementation that the administrative charge > gives an organisation access to, so re-implementing would not help.
I don't care about "impressions" about license agreements :-) It's either patented or it isn't. In case it isn't, there's nothing prohibiting us from doing our own implementation if we want to. So if you could provide a sample capture plus the necessary keys, I could try my luck in implementing this (OK, that would be time not spent on cmake stuff, but I can live with that ;-) If it is your own implementation, it would be nice to get at least the .h file into the source, that way I could make a complatible implementation. If we don't do anything, the the include statements and the lib invocations would have to be removed. Ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer <[email protected]> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
