<
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> William Whyte writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent
> status"):
> > Sorry for having let this drift for so long. Way back at the start
> > of the discussion, as we got into the discussion of the FOSS
.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> William Whyte writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent
> status"):
> > On the FOSS Exception,
> >
> https://github.com/NTRUOpenSourceProject/ntru-crypto/blob/master/FOSS%20Exception.md
> :
> > the intent here i
Hi all -- any thoughts on this? Would it make things easier if we changed
to a "whitelist" license policy, or is the rationale below for the
structure of the FOSS exception sufficient?
Cheers,
William
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:55 PM, William Whyte wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
Hi all,
Sorry for the delay responding: I've been traveling, then sick.
On patents: Yes, the license at
https://github.com/NTRUOpenSourceProject/ntru-crypto/blob/master/LICENSE.md
grants a license to use the patents under GPL v2 or higher.
On the FOSS Exception,
https://github.com/NTRUOpenSource
>My first thought was that Tor couldn't link with other GPLed software too.
Yeah, that's not the intent. I'll find out what the story is meant to be
here.
Cheers,
William
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 06:53 +0900, William Whyte
I think that entire FOSS Exception statement was imported from some other
project. I'll get our legal people to have a look at what that's meant to
mean and see if we can get clarification.
Cheers,
William
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Nic
6 matches
Mail list logo
