In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
wrote:
> I don't understand why US people can't be given access to the source
> tree.
Sorry for my ignorance, but who said that we cannot give US people access to
the source tree in general? Sure, we should perhaps make sure they cannot
commit to the non-documentation stuff (export!), but access to openssl/doc/
sounds good to me, too.
> Is it because of a desire to "prove" that nobody from the US exported
> source code? Surely that's (a) too big a hammer (we can, e.g., con-
> tribute to the ASN1 engine); (b) probably not sufficient proof; and
> (c) starting down a slippery slope that OpenSSL really should avoid --
> setting up mechanisms to help "enforce" every participating country's
> crypto export rules?
IMHO it's ok to not give them access to the non-documentation stuff, because
this way we don't have to make sure people don't violate their export laws.
> I totally agree that "writing documentation" should be foisted off to
> us whenever possible, freeing up those capable of doing crypto code to
> do so.
Yes, +1 for the docs.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
