[PATCH revised] Add gcry_mpi_ec_sub.
wk at gnupg.org
Thu Oct 9 08:38:06 CEST 2014
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 20:05, teichm at in.tum.de said:
> I did, but the mail from my non-subscribed gpg-adress was silently dropped. :/
> Here it is again:
Is is probably in the moderator queue.
> And I have a few questions about that:
> Say A certifies (a), (b) and (c), but not (d) and B certifies all four parts. If
> A creates a patch, sends it to B and B publishes it, would that be a valid
> contribution? What if A only meant to show the patch to B for review but not for
> public sharing?
At the end of the chain it always goes back to (a) or (b) which requires
"and I have the right to submit it under the free software license"
"and I have the right under that license to submit that work with
Thus you need to decide whether you have the right to submit
(i.e. publish) it.
> Is it ok to sign an address X with the gpg key, which only contains address Y as
> I am doing right now? At least doc/HACKING does not forbid it.
If its you, I am fine with it ;-)
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
More information about the Gcrypt-devel