Mike Kienenberger wrote: > On 2/21/07, Michael Gentry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> So, in my opinion, we aren't providing encryption. We are providing a >> hook for an end-user (like me) to add to the product (Cayenne) the >> ability to have a strongly encrypted database password > > > From http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/: > ======================================== > Products classified as ECCN 5D002, are exported by the ASF under the > TSU exception in EAR 740.13(e), which applies to software containing > or designed for use with encryption software that is publicly > available as open source. > ======================================== > > On the other hand, Roy also wrote: > ============== > As far as timing goes, the notice should be sent as soon as > it becomes clear that the product will eventually contain code > that is designed for a given 5D002 product (i.e., anything that > uses encryption for purposes other than mere authentication). > ============== > > So I think we need a ruling from ASF legal (probably either Roy or Cliff).
oh, sorry, I wasn't reading closely enough in my post a couple minutes ago. my bad. Cayenne *only* enables password encryption? I kinda doubt you need the bis notification, but a post to legal-discuss would remove all doubt. My comparison to derby doesn't fit -- it enables encryption of database data. -jean
