https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487067 Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #13 from Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny@xxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jack Lloyd from comment #12) > Upstream maintainer here. I'm not aware of any patents (whatsoever, in any > jurisdiction) on GOST-34.10 signature scheme. Nor am I aware of any > (unexpired) patents affecting the ECC code. Obviously you can remove > whatever you like, but if your legal knows something I don't please share. That's why I put spot on CC. He (with his Fedora Legal Hat on) is the one to answer what can be kept and what has to be removed. (Earlier experience shows that it might not be possible for the Legal Team to share the exact reasoning, though.) Blocking FE-Legal now. But don't get me wrong: I'd be totally happy to get their OK. > Only thing added in 2.x that I know is patented is OCB mode, for which there > is a free license for open source code. OpenSSL has OCB as well so I guess > you would just follow whatever decision you made for them. Just looking at http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm , I see there is a special license for OpenSSL. I would think that we need a similar license for Botan, or we have to remove OCB from the Fedora package. The reason is, that (in my own terms, IANAL) Fedora packages need to be free and not limited to Open Source projects (for the same reason the NC variants of CC are not allowed in Fedora). Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
