On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Nick S. [email protected]
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:58 AM, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi [email protected] wrote:
Interesting. I’ve never thought about it that US export control is a
reason. Is it about “Cryptography”? Or something other than that?
It is entirely related to cryptography. Several of the algorithms that
BC implements are considered “strong cryptography” which the current
US export laws seek to keep out of the hands of “terrorists” and the
like. Of course it’s nonsense, because all these algorithms are freely
available through a million other channels.
If we had a lawyer on hand, (s)he might be able to tell us whether BC
actually poses an export problem, since it’s actually an off-shore
hosted project (Australia, I think) and we’re just re-packaging it. To
date, we have not had a legal resource that could clarify things for
I think I can reduce “jruby-openssl” warning if jruby can bundle
jruby-openssl (or just include as an ext to reduce rubygems loading
overhead?). Let me know if you need.
My thoughts exactly. Now that we’ve moved bouncy-castle-jars to an
external dependency, we can bundle the jruby-ossl code in JRuby.
This is an excellent idea! If we could ship jruby-ossl directly in
JRuby and only provide the warning (as an error, really) when you hit
crypto stuff that requires BC, it may be the perfect compromise. We
should proceed to do that.
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: