RetroSearch Browse

Thu Oct 9 16:35:37 EDT 2003 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pythonmac-sig/2003-October/008994.html

On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 16:24 America/New_York, Ronald Oussoren 
wrote:

>
> On 9 okt 2003, at 21:43, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>   I think we could get away with including M2Crypto or PyOpenSSL with 
>> (Mac)Python 2.4 since OS X comes with OpenSSL.  Actually, since OS X 
>> is probably only salable in countries where OpenSSL is allowed, I 
>> don't see how distributing any cryptography libraries with the OS X 
>> version would be a legal problem.
>
> We could also use the commandline openssl interface (/usr/bin/openssl) 
> to avoid including crypto code with Python.

I would consider including something like M2Crypto to be a lot more 
sane than trying to drive openssl command line, and just as legal.  
What's the difference between dynamically binding to an already present 
library to do crypto, or to call out another already present program 
linked to said already present library to do crypto?  In both cases 
you're providing code that WILL do crypto if the software to do the 
grunt work is present, and in both cases you're not providing any 
crypto algorithms.  The difference is that using M2Crypto is going to 
be A LOT easier than using openssl from the command line (believe me, 
I've tried it).

-bob

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pythonmac-sig/2003-October/008994.html below:

[Pythonmac-SIG] Package Manager idea, adding a URL scheme