Re: crypto in non-free (again)

2004-02-28 Thread Peter Palfrader
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: [pgp5] > Besides, the Unix has a bug in the way it > reads /dev/random that make keys generated by it non-secure. I think that bug has been fixed in 5.0-6: * Reading from /dev/random now really produces random data. Fi

Re: crypto in non-free (again)

2004-02-28 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:49:20PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:18:03AM +, Ian Beckwith wrote: > > If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the > > move (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and > > pgp5i, the only thi

Re: crypto in non-free (again)

2004-02-28 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:18:03AM +, Ian Beckwith wrote: > If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the > move (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and > pgp5i, the only thing holding them in non-us is the RSA patent, > which I believe expired in Se

Re: crypto in non-free (again)

2004-02-28 Thread Andreas Barth
* Ian Beckwith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040228 10:25]: > If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the move > (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and pgp5i, > the only thing holding them in non-us is the RSA patent, which I > believe expired in September 2000

crypto in non-free (again)

2004-02-28 Thread Ian Beckwith
Hello. A month ago, I raised the question of whether the packages in non-us/non-free could move to non-free. The discussion died out before there was any consensus, so I'm raising it again. There are two packages in non-us/non-free, pgp5i and rsaref2. ckermit, which I am adopting, would also need