Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]

[Volker Quetschke]

>>No, I wouldn't, but I didn't intend on that being the only statement. 
>>Consider this:  The gpg which we distribute contains the *exact* same 
>>cipher, AES{128,192,256}, as ccrypt plus gpg also has twofish & 
>>blowfish.
> 
> The last time I checked, those two were also considered 
> 
>>"strong" encryption ciphers.  Moreover, gpg can be used encrypt and 
>>decrypt streams like ccrypt so, in a sense, they share similar 
>>functionality.  That's where I see the disconnect.  Does this mean we 
>>should ditch gpg as well or distribute a version with < 128bit ciphers? 
>>Frankly, I don't see why we should disqualified ccrypt because someone 
>>"thinks" it might be a problem.  Is it *really* a problem?
>>
>>By his standard, RedHat has been breaking the law for years now, which 
>>leads me to conclude that either:
>>A)The authorities don't care.
>>B)Red Hat doesn't care.
>>or
>>C)RedHat already has filed the necessary paperwork to allow it to 
>>distribute binaries with strong encryption.
> 
> Hmm.  I guess I haven't been as diligent as I should have been.  I've
> pulled gnupg from the distribution.

Hmm, I had the 1.2.4 version ready for a while, but forgot to mention
it.

Now it's too late. Anyone here with a bit web/ftp space to host the 
cygwin package? (Preferably in europe?)

Volker
(Former cygwin gnupg mainainer)

-- 
PGP/GPG key  (ID: 0x9F8A785D)  available  from  wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913  9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/attachments/20040223/692e0f39/attachment.sig>