On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Staffan Tylen <staffan.tylen@gmail.com> wrote:

I think you are building your own version from source, correct?  If so, if you pick up the latest commit and rebuild, you should be good.

If not, I'll build an updated preview version and put it up on SourceForge.  I will be putting up a new preview soon, but I won't rush if you are building yourself.



Yes, I can build myself but I noticed that botan now is removed, so my question is, what's the situation with this?

The situation is as I explained before.  One of the developer's objects to including encryption software, believing it opens us, the developers, to the risk of violating U.S.A. law.  

I personally believe that, as long as all the source code is provided by the project as open source and is publicly available, we would fall under the license exception: TSU (740.13) (e). 


Are there still plans to provide encryption support as standard?

No, as long as any developer objects, there will be no support.


 
Have there been any internal discussions among you devs about my proposal to not include the botan dll as part of ooSQLite or ooRexx but leave it up to the user to install the dll if necessary directly from the botan website, this to avoid any export restrictions?

This is probably an excellent example of why the developer objects.  Most people do not seem to understand the law here.  The EAR says that if your product enables the use of encryption, it must be registered and licensed.  The exception to this is license exception TSU (740.13) (e).  This exception clearly states that *if* the complete source code to the product would considered open source and *we* publicly distribute the source code we would qualify for the exception by notifying the Bureau of Industry Standard of where *we* distribute the software.

So, in the scenario you propose, we would not qualify for the exception.  A.) we would distributing a product that enables the use of encryption.  B.) we would not be making the complete source code publicly available.

On those grounds alone, I'd object.

--
Mark Miesfeld