"A.M. Kuchling" <amk@amk.ca> writes: > Do we want to do anything about this for 2.3? A benefit is that AES > is useful, and likely to remain so for the next 20 years; a drawback > is that it might entangle the PSF in export-control legalities. I > vaguely recall the PSF getting some legal advice on this point; am I > misremembering? What was the outcome? I think we now formally meet all US export requirements. The requirement is that we inform some agency that we do export cryptographic software. Jeremy did that. I don't recall the exact details of that registration, but I think it would be easy to update it to also report that we export an AES implementation (or, perhaps, our registration was generic to cover all future additions to the SF CVS tree). So I'm all in favour of adding AES to the Python standard library. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4