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