Ian Jackson writes:
> And, if at any point in the future somebody takes a more legalistic
> view and starts sending takedown notices, we can just throw away our
> existing version based on the old RFC's code and redo the integration
> using the nearly-identical code from the new RFC.
Hm, the pre
Carsten Leonhardt writes ("Re: SHA1 implementation by Steve Reid"):
> So from what you wrote earlier, I understand that the IETF saw the
> problem with code in RFCs and took steps to clarify the situation, which
> I take as a hint from the IETF that the old code from RFC_3174
> should/can be seen a
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:55:40 +0100
Julien Puydt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> according to bug #876733, there is a licensing problem with jeuclid :
> - the LICENSE.txt file [1] says Apache 2.0 ;
LICENSE.txt showed up in revision b9d5f518ae61 (61) as a rename of LICENSE.
LICENSE showed up in revision 7a11e25
3 matches
Mail list logo
