cryptoapi-devel

[CryptoAPI-devel] checked in my code

[Kyle M. <ky...@de...>]

checked in a nice version of my code. everything seems to work well.
screwed up the changelog entry, unfortunatly, and forgot to include a
linebreak in it so it runs on... ah well.

cvs update, i guess.

everything seems to work well though, and sf has my ssh2 key. excellent.

enjoy the rest of your weekend :)

	kyle
-- 
copyleft (c) 2002, Kyle McMartin

Re: [CryptoAPI-devel] checked in my code

[Herbert V. R. <hv...@hv...>]

On Sun, 2002-03-03 at 22:31, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> checked in a nice version of my code. everything seems to work well.
> screwed up the changelog entry, unfortunatly, and forgot to include a
> linebreak in it so it runs on... ah well.
>=20
> cvs update, i guess.
>=20
> everything seems to work well though, and sf has my ssh2 key. excellent.
>=20
> enjoy the rest of your weekend :)

looks good :-), except for 2 major things...

please revert the kbuild patch; this isn't the right thing...
1.) the kbuild patch should neither add a kernel suffix (I was tented
myself long time ago; but this 1. would require to have such a patch for
_every_ kernel version out there... and 2ndly it will break peoples
custom kernels... so don't do it :-)
2.) the kbuild patch, as the name already says, should touch _only_
makefiles and other build-related control files... so the loop.c patch
doesn't belong in there for at least one reason; the other reason is,
that people may prefer the loop-jari patch, and this would conflcit; so
don't do this either..
3.) we can't claim something changed to be GPL'ed, if we don't have the
copyright to do so... this could bring us into major legal problems...

regards,
--=20
Herbert Valerio Riedel       /    Phone: (EUROPE) +43-1-58801-18840
Email: hv...@hv...       /    Finger hv...@gn... for GnuPG Public Key
GnuPG Key Fingerprint: 7BB9 2D6C D485 CE64 4748  5F65 4981 E064 883F
4142

Re: [CryptoAPI-devel] checked in my code

[Kyle M. <ky...@de...>]

fwd of private message to hvr.

On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 03:14:44PM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 01:42:57PM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> > 1.) the kbuild patch should neither add a kernel suffix (I was tented
> > myself long time ago; but this 1. would require to have such a patch for
> > _every_ kernel version out there... and 2ndly it will break peoples
> > custom kernels... so don't do it :-)
> > 2.) the kbuild patch, as the name already says, should touch _only_
> > makefiles and other build-related control files... so the loop.c patch
> > doesn't belong in there for at least one reason; the other reason is,
> > that people may prefer the loop-jari patch, and this would conflcit; so
> > don't do this either..
> >
> sorry, i should have mentioned in the changelog that these were just
> temporary until i could put together some other framework for adding
> miscellenous crypto patches to the api. i'll revert it until i can do
> that. 
> 
> > 3.) we can't claim something changed to be GPL'ed, if we don't have the
> > copyright to do so... this could bring us into major legal problems...
> > 
> oh shhhhblah. i assumed all the code was taken from the public domain. i
> will fix this right away. would it be alright if i added a Makefile
> target to build only ciphers which can be gpl-licensed?
> 
> -- 
> copyleft (c) 2002, Kyle McMartin

-- 
copyleft (c) 2002, Kyle McMartin

Re: [CryptoAPI-devel] checked in my code

[David B. <db...@du...>]

On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 05:42, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-03-03 at 22:31, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> > checked in a nice version of my code. everything seems to work well.
> > screwed up the changelog entry, unfortunatly, and forgot to include a
> > linebreak in it so it runs on... ah well.
> >=20
> > cvs update, i guess.
> >=20
> > everything seems to work well though, and sf has my ssh2 key. excellent=
.
> >=20
> > enjoy the rest of your weekend :)
>=20
> looks good :-), except for 2 major things...
>=20
eek these were both my suggestion to kyle, my bad.

> please revert the kbuild patch; this isn't the right thing...
> 1.) the kbuild patch should neither add a kernel suffix (I was tented
> myself long time ago; but this 1. would require to have such a patch for
> _every_ kernel version out there... and 2ndly it will break peoples
> custom kernels... so don't do it :-)
> 2.) the kbuild patch, as the name already says, should touch _only_
> makefiles and other build-related control files... so the loop.c patch
> doesn't belong in there for at least one reason; the other reason is,
> that people may prefer the loop-jari patch, and this would conflcit; so
> don't do this either..
> 3.) we can't claim something changed to be GPL'ed, if we don't have the
> copyright to do so... this could bring us into major legal problems...
is this in regards to "declaring" all of the module licenses GPL ?  In
which case should we be trying to hunt down all the original maintainers
of the code and asking them if we can GPL it ?
Dave

Re: [CryptoAPI-devel] checked in my code

[Herbert V. R. <hv...@hv...>]

On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 20:58, David Bryson wrote:
> eek these were both my suggestion to kyle, my bad.
np, it's cvs... everything can be reverted... :-)

> > 3.) we can't claim something changed to be GPL'ed, if we don't have the
> > copyright to do so... this could bring us into major legal problems...
> is this in regards to "declaring" all of the module licenses GPL ?  In
> which case should we be trying to hunt down all the original maintainers
> of the code and asking them if we can GPL it ?

some are X11-style licenses (i.e. the api itself by alex et al. is
declared such iirc)
some are GPL'ed (the cryptoloop module I (re)wrote) or the twofish
implementation taken from the gpg project...

some are BSDish... and some others are public domain..

btw, do we really need everything to be GPLed? i.e. the patented algos
might not be gpl'able... but I'm not sure right now...

regards,
--=20
Herbert Valerio Riedel       /    Phone: (EUROPE) +43-1-58801-18840
Email: hv...@hv...       /    Finger hv...@gn... for GnuPG Public Key
GnuPG Key Fingerprint: 7BB9 2D6C D485 CE64 4748  5F65 4981 E064 883F
4142

Re: [CryptoAPI-devel] checked in my code

[David B. <db...@du...>]

On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 14:21, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 20:58, David Bryson wrote:
> > eek these were both my suggestion to kyle, my bad.
> np, it's cvs... everything can be reverted... :-)
>=20
> > > 3.) we can't claim something changed to be GPL'ed, if we don't have t=
he
> > > copyright to do so... this could bring us into major legal problems..=
.
> > is this in regards to "declaring" all of the module licenses GPL ?  In
> > which case should we be trying to hunt down all the original maintainer=
s
> > of the code and asking them if we can GPL it ?
>=20
> some are X11-style licenses (i.e. the api itself by alex et al. is
> declared such iirc)
> some are GPL'ed (the cryptoloop module I (re)wrote) or the twofish
> implementation taken from the gpg project...
>=20
> some are BSDish... and some others are public domain..
Not that this is a bad thing, but I'm pretty sure the debian people for
example(correct me if i'm wrong kyle) will only put in OSI certified
licenses to their distro.  GPL is just a nice to "not worry" about it
from our programming perspective.

>=20
> btw, do we really need everything to be GPLed? i.e. the patented algos
> might not be gpl'able... but I'm not sure right now...
>=20
I don't think they should *have* to be GPL'd but the api is GPL'd..
correct ?
BTW if you and others do not know, we have a #crypto room on OPN where
kyle and i converse rather often.  Please come on by and chat with us
about things, heh it's all we ever do ;-).
Dave

Re: [CryptoAPI-devel] checked in my code

[Justin C. <ju...@po...>]

Hi all,

How about this as a start... 

The project decides which license it's going to "officially" support,
and states up front that all patches to this code which people donate
are going to be covered by that same license.  This was if people don't
want their patches under that licese, don't post the patches.

But, which license?

I think we should be careful here too. Chosing BSD means the GPL people
will generally kick up a stink, and choosing GPL can mean the
company-friendly people will kick up a stink, etc.

Sometime the licensing argument can get so bad that people will actually
leave projects, etc.  :(

My vote is to keep the code the same as the Linux kernel, as that's
where we want it included anyway.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 20:58, David Bryson wrote:
> > eek these were both my suggestion to kyle, my bad.
> np, it's cvs... everything can be reverted... :-)
> 
> > > 3.) we can't claim something changed to be GPL'ed, if we don't have the
> > > copyright to do so... this could bring us into major legal problems...
> > is this in regards to "declaring" all of the module licenses GPL ?  In
> > which case should we be trying to hunt down all the original maintainers
> > of the code and asking them if we can GPL it ?
> 
> some are X11-style licenses (i.e. the api itself by alex et al. is
> declared such iirc)
> some are GPL'ed (the cryptoloop module I (re)wrote) or the twofish
> implementation taken from the gpg project...
> 
> some are BSDish... and some others are public domain..
> 
> btw, do we really need everything to be GPLed? i.e. the patented algos
> might not be gpl'able... but I'm not sure right now...
> 
> regards,
> --
> Herbert Valerio Riedel       /    Phone: (EUROPE) +43-1-58801-18840
> Email: hv...@hv...       /    Finger hv...@gn... for GnuPG Public Key
> GnuPG Key Fingerprint: 7BB9 2D6C D485 CE64 4748  5F65 4981 E064 883F
> 4142
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                        Name: signature.asc
>    signature.asc       Type: PGP Armored File (application/x-unknown-content-type-PGP Armored File)
>                 Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
   - Indira Gandhi