Re: lsh 0.1 released (gpl'ed ssh)
- To: "J.H.M. Dassen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: lsh 0.1 released (gpl'ed ssh)
- From: Philip Hands <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 02 Jun 1999 12:08:04 +0100
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: "J.H.M. Dassen"'s message of "Mon, 31 May 1999 09:34:53 +0200"
- References: <374CBA67.325AE4A8@concentric.net> <7iiule$l4i$1@Q.cistron.nl> <19990527162313.B23403@ultra5.wi.leidenuniv.nl> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <19990531093453.D31774@pc203a.wi.leidenuniv.nl>
"J.H.M. Dassen" <email@example.com> writes:
> There are quite a few things to be done that do not require cryptography
> expertise (e.g. documentation, most of the work on identifying
> interoperability issues with SSH2, implementing some features). The core
> crypto code of lsh is well-tested (it comes from Pike mostly). The SSH2
> protocol is quite modular, so deep knowledge of crypto isn't required.
Do you happen to know what the deal is as far as being contaminated by
having seen ssh code ? Are they trying to ensure clean room
conditions as far as the ssh code is concerneted ? I've seen a fair
amount of the ssh v1.2 code (being it's Debian maintainer), but the
only bit of ssh v2 I've read is the license. Does that mean I'm OK ?
On a related subject, has anyone else looked at packaging lsh?
I started on it, then it occured to me that I might be unable to
contribute to lsh without opening them up to claims of copyright
infringment from SSH Communications Security Ltd.