I've created an OpenSSL version of the sha module. trivial to modify
to be a md5 module. Its a first version with cleanup to be done and
such. being managed in the SF patch manager:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1121611&group_id=5470&atid=305470
enjoy. i'll do more cleanu
David Ascher wrote:
FWIW, I agree. Personnally, I think that if Debian has a problem with
the above, it's their problem to deal with, not Python's.
The OSI may also have a problem with the license if they were to be made
aware of it.
See section 8 of the Open Source Definition:
"""8. License Mus
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:52:29 -0500, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe some ambitious PSF activitst could contact Roskind and Steve
> Kirsch and see if they know who at Disney to talk to... Or maybe the
> Disney guys who were at PyCon last year could help.
I contacted Jim. His respo
I contacted Jim Roskind re: the profiler code.
i said:
I'm a strong supporter of Opensource software, but I'm probably not
going to be able to help you very much. I could be much more helpful
with understanding the code or its use ;-).
To summarize what I'll say: I don't own the rights to th
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 08:37:21AM -0500, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:54:27PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > Are there any potential problems with making the md5sum module availability
> > "optional" in the same way as this?
>
> The md5 module has been a standard module for
"Aahz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib.html
>> After reading this page and pages linked thereto, I get the impression
>> that
>> you are only asking for contributor forms from contributors
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005, Terry Reedy wrote:
> ""Martin v. Löwis"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib.html
>
> After reading this page and pages linked thereto, I get the impression that
> you are only asking for contributor forms fr
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:54:27PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
Are there any potential problems with making the md5sum module availability
"optional" in the same way as this?
The md5 module has been a standard module for a long time; making it
optional in the next version of
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 08:37, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> The md5 module has been a standard module for a long time; making it
> optional in the next version of Python isn't possible. We'd have to
> require OpenSSL to compile Python.
I totally agree.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a dig
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:54:27PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> Are there any potential problems with making the md5sum module availability
> "optional" in the same way as this?
The md5 module has been a standard module for a long time; making it
optional in the next version of Python isn't poss
At 03:46 PM 2/11/05 -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
If Larry is correct, it isn't legally possible for an individual in
the US to disclaim copyright, regardless what they may say or sign.
The danger then is that accepting software that purports to be free of
copyright can come back to bite you, if the aut
At 02:09 AM 2/12/05 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Isn't the PSF somewhere in between? I mean, in theory we are supposed to
be tracking stuff, but in practice there's no contributor agreement for
CVS committers ala Zope Corp.'s approach.
That is not true, see
http://www.pyth
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I personally can't see how taking the reasonable interpretation of a
public domain declaration can lead to any difficulties, but then,
IANAL.
The ultimate question is whether we could legally relicense such
code under the Python license, ie. remove the PD declaration, and
at
G'day again,
From: "Gregory P. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing
> > md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a
> > search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem is
> > deciding what/how/whether to inc
On Feb 11, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
G'day again,
From: "Gregory P. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing
md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a
search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem i
At 12:57 AM 2/12/05 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I personally can't see how taking the reasonable interpretation of a
public domain declaration can lead to any difficulties, but then, IANAL.
The ultimate question is whether we could legally relicense such
code under the Pyth
G'day,
From: "Bob Ippolito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Feb 11, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
> > Given that Python is already dependant on openssl, it makes sense to
> > change
> > md5sum to use it. I have a feeling that openssl internally uses md5,
> > so this
> > way we wont link a
""Martin v. Löwis"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib.html
After reading this page and pages linked thereto, I get the impression that
you are only asking for contributor forms from contributors of original
material (such as module
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Isn't the PSF somewhere in between? I mean, in theory we are supposed
to be tracking stuff, but in practice there's no contributor agreement
for CVS committers ala Zope Corp.'s approach.
That is not true, see
http://www.python.org/psf/contrib.html
We certainly don't have
19 matches
Mail list logo
