Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> On 2/21/07, Michael Gentry <blacknex..mail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, in my opinion, we aren't providing encryption. We are providing a
>> hook for an end-user (like me) to add to the product (Cayenne) the
>> ability to have a strongly encrypted database password
>
>
> From http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/:
> ========================================
> Products classified as ECCN 5D002, are exported by the ASF under the
> TSU exception in EAR 740.13(e), which applies to software containing
> or designed for use with encryption software that is publicly
> available as open source.
> ========================================
>
> On the other hand, Roy also wrote:
> ==============
> As far as timing goes, the notice should be sent as soon as
> it becomes clear that the product will eventually contain code
> that is designed for a given 5D002 product (i.e., anything that
> uses encryption for purposes other than mere authentication).
> ==============
>
> So I think we need a ruling from ASF legal (probably either Roy or Cliff).
oh, sorry, I wasn't reading closely enough in my post a couple minutes
ago. my bad.
Cayenne *only* enables password encryption? I kinda doubt you need the
bis notification, but a post to legal-discuss would remove all doubt.
My comparison to derby doesn't fit -- it enables encryption of database
data.
-jean
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Feb 21 2007 - 22:47:17 EST