Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: FW: Crypto | Date | 3 Aug 2000 13:14:29 -0700 |
| |
Followup to: <20000803104833.A7927@bolet.ens.fr> By author: Thomas Pornin <Thomas.Pornin@ens.fr> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > To my knowledge, nobody, neither private people nor industry, was > ever prosecuted or even remotely threatened in France for use of too > strong cryptography in the last few years. Moreover, cryptography > vendors yearn for the declaration/authorization procedure, since a > "government-blessed" system is widely considered as high-quality. >
This is cool, but *mandatory*?
> For Linux: there is no real limitation in France about integrating > cryptography in the kernel. Vendors such as RedHat will perform the > administrative procedures. Smaller will do nothing and everything will > be fine. So let the code enter (as long as it is high-quality).
Now, does that mean we have to have Mandrake or RedHat do something for every kernel release that contains a new form of crypto? This could quickly become very painful.
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |