Donovan Baarda writes:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
The md5.h/md5c.c files allow "copy and use", but no modification of the files. There are some alternative implementations, i.e. in glibc, openssl, so a replacement should be sage. Any other requirements when considering a replacement?
One thing to consider is "degree of difficulty" :-)
Matthias
I believe the "plan" for md5 and sha1 and such is to use the much faster openssl versions "in the future" (based on a long thread debating future interfaces to such things on python-dev last summer). That'll sidestep any tedious license issue and give a better implementation at the same time. i don't believe anyone has taken the time to make such a patch yet.
I wasn't around for that discussion. There are two viable replacements for the RSA implementation currently used;
libmd <http://www.penguin.cz/~mhi/libmd/> openssl <http://www.openssl.org/>.
The libmd implementation is by Colin Plumb and has the licence; "This code is in the public domain; do with it what you wish." The API is identical to the RSA implementation and BSD world's libmd and hence is a drop in replacement. This implementation is faster than the RSA implementation.
[...]
Currently md5c.c is included in the python sources. The libmd implementation has a drop in replacement for md5c.c. The openssl implementation is a complicated tangle of Makefile expanded template code that would be harder to include in the Python sources.
I would prefer that one as a short term solution. Patch at #1118602.