[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SHA, MD, and openssl
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: SHA, MD, and openssl |
Date: |
Sun, 08 Dec 2013 23:11:35 +0200 |
> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 13:01:40 -0800
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
>
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > However, isn't it true that openssl has some legal "issues" with
> > patents and with its license, and shouldn't we prefer libnettle for
> > those reasons?
>
> I'm not aware of any patent issues for SHA or MD5.
I meant openssl as a whole.
> As for as license, Emacs is linking against a library
> that is normally distributed with the major components of
> the operating system, so that part of the GPL applies.
What about systems where openssl is not normally present out of the
box? Aren't we encouraging people to install it?
- SHA, MD, and openssl, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/12/08
- Re: SHA, MD, and openssl, Paul Eggert, 2013/12/08
- Re: SHA, MD, and openssl, Richard Stallman, 2013/12/09
- Re: SHA, MD, and openssl, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2013/12/09
- Re: SHA, MD, and openssl, Richard Stallman, 2013/12/10
- Re: SHA, MD, and openssl, Paul Eggert, 2013/12/10
- Re: SHA, MD, and openssl, Richard Stallman, 2013/12/11
- Re: SHA, MD, and openssl, Paul Eggert, 2013/12/11