On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 18:22 +0000, Salz, Rich wrote: > > I'm still waiting on a reply ... I assume holidays are contributing > > to the delay. However, openssl_tpm_engine is a DCO project, so that > > concern is irrelevant here. > > Sorry, I'll push to get the bylaws made public, is that what you > need?
There were two requests: the bylaws and whether modified grant would be acceptable. If, instead of an unrestricted grant in the CLA it were restricted to relicensing to an OSI approved licence, the need to do due diligence on the foundation goes away. > And no, it's not irrelevant. If this is ever going to appear in > OpenSSL, a CLA must be signed. It's not actually my code: I'm just updating it, so I'm unable to say what the long term plan actually is. I would think, though, that hardware engines, since they're highly OS support dependent, would be difficult to keep within openssl itself given that you want to compile on multiple platforms. James -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev