wk at gnupg.org
Tue Dec 10 18:04:00 CET 2013
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:01, nisse at lysator.liu.se said:
> assignments were never considered. A few years later, 1998, I started on
> LSH, and reused the low-level C code. Half a year later, LSH was dubbed
I recall that we met at the DKUUG spring conference that year and talked
about who would write a free ssh implementation (back then ssh was
proprietary) and I pointed you to the psst site. I didn't knew that you
had a free crypto library at hand.
> a GNU package, with no large changes to the way it was developed. No
> copyright assignment policy was imposed at that time (and since I wasn't
Nobody understands why RMS sometimes demands a CA and sometimes not.
The FSF had always communicated to me that there is no way to do GNU
stuff without a CA except for existsing code like TeX, X11, and Mach.
> So what about today? Is FSF copyright assignment important to you, and
I announced last year that there is no more need for a CA. But the
whole discussion is moot; Nettle and Libgcrypt are very different and
there is no need to merge them.
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
More information about the Gcrypt-devel