your gnupg patches

Werner Koch wk at
Tue Mar 30 17:16:09 CEST 2004

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:15:47 -0500, Tom St Denis said:

> If you look at the patches they are not that radical.  I replace your 
> "inlined" load/stores with macros.  I replaced your constants with the 
> #defines you already set and I added test vectors.  

I have not looked at the patches.

> Personally I don't believe in the GPL that's why I don't use it myself.  These 
> patches were written ontop of a GPL product, that makes the patches GPL.

Please read what I wrote.

> If anything only C99 [I'll have to check] provides for this.  I'm positive 
> that C90 and C89 [the more popular standards] only provide types that are "at 
> least" a given size.  If you don't trust me ask the pros in comp.lang.c

You are commenting on the GnuPG code quality without actually looking
at the code.  It is not sufficient to just look at some random .c
files; there is more you need to read.

> I'm certain my patches could be applied against any branch as you guys were 
> unlikely to clean up that code anyways.

There is no reason to do this.

>> That is definitely wrong.  The FSF exists to foster Freedom in
>> software use and development.  Specific development procedures have
>> nothing to do with the goals of the FSF.

> So you write a tool called "GNUPG" then ignore contributions as a matter of 
> pride?  Gotcha.  

Please read what I wrote.

> How about not.  You guys are not worth the trouble.

You are entitled to your views.



More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list