ng0 <contact....@cryptolab.net> writes:
> Leo Famulari transcribed 0.7K bytes:
>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:50:14PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
>> > Do I read this correctly that they include some kind of
>> > anti-military license in there? I mean I am very much welcoming
>> > such an exclusion but with all the past discussions I had it lead
>> > to the point where it is not compatible with free software.
>> >
>> > Do we have to strip OCB from the source?
>> > https://github.com/Legrandin/pycryptodome/blob/master/LICENSE.rst
>> >
>> > Pycryptodome is a dependency of streamlink.
>>
>> The question is about the OCB block cipher mode. I think we are able to
>> distribute implementations of it:
>>
>> http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/ocb-faq.htm#patent:phil
>> http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/ocb-faq.htm#license
>> http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm
>>
>
> With regards to this bug, can someone help to get the facts clear here
> so that we know what needs to be done to package streamlink?
See also the copyright file that Debian have written:
http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/p/pycryptodome/pycryptodome_3.4.7-1_copyright
License 1 applies to free software implementations. That’s already
enough for us.
License 2 applies to non-free implementations. There the author
distinguishes between non-military and military uses.
License 3 is an explicit grant for OpenSSL.
--
Ricardo
GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net
