[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SHA1 implementation by Steve Reid



Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> And, if at any point in the future somebody takes a more legalistic
> view and starts sending takedown notices, we can just throw away our
> existing version based on the old RFC's code and redo the integration
> using the nearly-identical code from the new RFC.

Hm, the previous maintainers of bacula removed the code because of bug
#658326, submitted 2012-02-02. The new RFC 6234 is dated "May 2011", so
before the bug report.

> So there is, I think, very little risk to us or our downstreams, of
> leaving this situation as is - ie, there is no point going and trying
> to weed out code based on the old RFC (even if we could somehow
> reliably determine whether some code was based on the old RFC
> directly, or via the new RFC with the better licence).

I'll point upstream to this thread and ask if he'd consider using the
code from the new RFC.

(By the way, the situation "as is" is to repackage the upstream source,
removing sha1.[ch].)

Thank you,

Carsten


Reply to: