Where to download this library?

[ana.d...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Can anyone please let me know the current LibTomCrypt's website
address? I just need to download the latest version...

My old bookmark points to http://libtomcrypt.org whereas Google lists
libtomcrypt.com which says "New address is libtom.org" although the
latter is down as well.

Tom's email address is no longer valid either. Is this library
abandoned?

Thanks in advance.

Ana

[Alejandro Mery]

ana.d...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone please let me know the current LibTomCrypt's website
> address? I just need to download the latest version...
>
> My old bookmark points to http://libtomcrypt.org whereas Google lists
> libtomcrypt.com which says "New address is libtom.org" although the
> latter is down as well.
>

afaik the official site is http://libtom.org even if it's currently down.

there are many mirrors, you can get them for example from:
http://de1.opensde.net/opensde/mirror/trunk/c/crypt-1.17.tar.bz2
http://de1.opensde.net/opensde/mirror/trunk/t/tfm-0.12.tar.bz2
http://de1.opensde.net/opensde/mirror/trunk/l/ltm-0.39.tar.bz2

> Tom's email address is no longer valid either. Is this library
> abandoned?

I really hope Tom is well and just taking off-line vacations. I love his
work and his effort toward the "open academia"

Regards,
Alejandro Mery

[ana.d...@gmail.com]

Alejandro Mery <am...@opensde.org> wrote:

> there are many mirrors, you can get them for example from

Thanks for the links. Just downloaded the tars, Any chance to get
the signatures to check them?

Ana

[Alejandro Mery]

ana.d...@gmail.com escribió:

Well... I can give you the sha1 I get, but we recompress *every* package
(not re-tar) after download, so they may not be the same you can find on
mirrors which keep them pristine.

9c746822c84e4276e432b64964f94d1d5ddd13ad
download/mirror/c/crypt-1.17.tar.bz2
288bd8f1451718acd97effe6591749246ae8f5c1 download/mirror/t/tfm-0.12.tar.bz2
a6db2221c64a1951c5c78d573dbf427f989fd346 download/mirror/l/ltm-0.41.tar.bz2

google for the file names and you will find many mirrors, some of them
publishing hashes... but with libtom.org down it's hard to "validate"
them anyway.

Good luck,
Alejandro Mery

[Alejandro Mery]

Alejandro Mery escribió:

My hashes are the same Gentoo publishes... that is something.

[Steffen Jaeckel]

Hi,

when i have a look at

http://home.libtom.org/

it seems to me that tom isn't up for maintaining his libtom
projects... but he's still alive :)

so possibly he will return one day

Steffen

>>>> Tuesday, August 19, 2008, 11:40:06 PM you wrote

[Alejandro Mery]

> when i have a look at
>
> http://home.libtom.org/
>
> it seems to me that tom isn't up for maintaining his libtom
> projects... but he's still alive :)

Great to know he is still alive :D ... Tons of classical music, maybe
he is playing piano now? =)

> so possibly he will return one day

I think he doesn't feel enough rewarded for his open source work, and
that people using his public domain libraries didn't share his view
for the world (Which is most probably true), but I trust he will
return one day with new energy =)

Cheers,
Alejandro Mery

[Patrick Oppenlander]

> I think he doesn't feel enough rewarded for his open source work, and
> that people using his public domain libraries didn't share his view
> for the world (Which is most probably true), but I trust he will
> return one day with new energy =)
>
> Cheers,
> Alejandro Mery
>

Well I hope he's reading this because he is certainly appreciated by many!

-Patrick

[hondza]

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.crypt/browse_thread/thread/7ff411227ee5c2ba/bae8d72a25fcfe0b?lnk=gst&q=when+is+tom#bae8d72a25fcfe0b

:(

> -Patrick

--
hondza

[Patrick Oppenlander]

...causing other people to try to "get even" with him, to the extent of
sending illegal images to him then reporting him to the police...

That is an abomination. The idiocy of some people astounds me.

-Patrick

[pbouf]

He might still be working for Ellipsys, specifically on their
commercial crypto software library. I guess they pay him very well
there.

Good luck to him!

On Aug 20, 8:14 am, Patrick Oppenlander <oc...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 2008-08-20; 21:23:36, Patrick Oppenlander wrote:>>> I think he doesn't feel enough rewarded for his open source work, and
> >>> that people using his public domain libraries didn't share his view
> >>> for the world (Which is most probably true), but I trust he will
> >>> return one day with new energy =)
>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Alejandro Mery
>
> >> Well I hope he's reading this because he is certainly appreciated by many!
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.crypt/browse_thread/thread/7ff4112...

[Juul]

> it seems to me that tom isn't up for maintaining his libtom
> projects... but he's still alive :)
>
> so possibly he will return one day

I called him up and asked him. He doesn't know why the server is down
but said that he "isn't really into working on open source projects
right now". I'm not sure what that means. He promised to email me, and
I will report back if I learn anything new.

Marc

[Steffen Jaeckel]

about 2 months later, nothing has changed :(

aside from the fact that i've won "The Irish National Lottery Online
Lottery" ;)

steffen

>>>> Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 7:28:30 PM you wrote

[Pare]

So we can consider the library as orphaned...
It should be relicensed to encourage people contributing.

[Alejandro Mery]

> I called him up and asked him. He doesn't know why the server is down
> but said that he "isn't really into working on open source projects
> right now". I'm not sure what that means. He promised to email me, and
> I will report back if I learn anything new.

Hi Marc,
may you ask him to hand over a copy of the cvs repos (and maybe
tarballs) so we can resurrect libtom as a community project?

Thanks,
Alejandro

[Felix Kronlage]

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 08:29:32AM -0800, Pare wrote:

> So we can consider the library as orphaned...
> It should be relicensed to encourage people contributing.

afaik libtomcrypt and associated libs are public domain, can't be
any more free. You are free to do with it what you want.
(at least this used to be the case with libtomcrypt 1.13)
From his license file:

| [20:14] fkr(ripley):..ibtomcrypt %> cat LICENSE
| LibTomCrypt is public domain. As should all quality software be.
|
| Tom St Denis

felix
--
GPG/PGP: D9AC74D0 / 076E 1E87 3E05 1C7F B1A0 8A48 0D31 9BD3 D9AC 74D0
http://hazardous.org/~fkr - f...@hazardous.org - fkr@silc|irc - FKR-RIPE
https://www.bytemine.net/ - bytemine - BSD based Hosting/Solutions/Ideas

[Alejandro Mery]

On Dec 13, 8:16 pm, Felix Kronlage <fkr...@grummel.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 08:29:32AM -0800, Pare wrote:
> > So we can consider the library as orphaned...
> > It should be relicensed to encourage people contributing.
>
> afaik libtomcrypt and associated libs are public domain, can't be
> any more free. You are free to do with it what you want.
> (at least this used to be the case with libtomcrypt 1.13)
> From his license file:
>
> | [20:14] fkr(ripley):..ibtomcrypt %> cat LICENSE
> | LibTomCrypt is public domain.  As should all quality software be.
> |
> | Tom St Denis

I think he means to relicense as "public domain" is not a world-wide
valid license when the author is alive, and probably a 3-clauses BSD
license can do better.

Alejandro

[Pare]

On 13 Dic, 20:44, Alejandro Mery <am...@geeks.cl> wrote:
> > | [20:14] fkr(ripley):..ibtomcrypt %> cat LICENSE
> > | LibTomCrypt is public domain.  As should all quality software be.
> > |
> > | Tom St Denis
>
> I think he means to relicense as "public domain" is not a world-wide
> valid license when the author is alive, and probably a 3-clauses BSD
> license can do better.

I only mean that I've never seen a community growing with a "public
domain" licence.
Anyway I was experimenting with the Toom-Cook code, for large numbers,
with some optimizations ( http://ln.bodrato.it/waifi07_pdf ) it get
significantly faster.
But now I do not have any place where to send my code...

m
--
http://bodrato.it/

[Tom St Denis]

I just made this gmail account to reply since I guess you guys
inspired me too, hehehe.

Anyways, I've put a copy of the LT trees up at

http://home.libtom.org/lt_tree.tar.bz2

Such as they are (mostly unchanged from over a year ago or so). As
usual, you're all free to do whatever you want with them. I'm sorry I
don't have the CVS repository handy, but it was mostly full of useless
contrib comments anyways :-)

Tom

[Pedro Azevedo]

Hey Tom.

I like the simplicity, the vast array of algorithms, the documentation, the low level of your lib, but if you're going to stop supporting it (I'm not sure if someone else, as competent, will pick it up) then I should start looking at other options. Do you have any suggestions?

I already looked around, I'm sort of leaning towards libgcrypt, but it's not as complete or well documented as yours, and other main solutions out there like OpenSSL and NSS are hardly documented at all.

Regards,

Pedro Azevedo

[Alejandro Mery]

Hi Tom,

great to see you again, I trust the music has been gratifying.

I was lost on a sea of spam so I missed this mail until now. Thank you
very much.

Please, if you have a chance to find the CVS repo... the history of
libtom is much more than a couple of funny comments ;-) and even them
are valuable!

Thanks! :)
Alejandro

On Dec 31 2008, 1:38 pm, Tom St Denis <tomchopinstde...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Pare]

On Dec 16 2008, 1:25 pm, Pare <google....@bodrato.it> wrote:
> On 13 Dic, 20:44, Alejandro Mery <am...@geeks.cl> wrote:
> > I think he means to relicense as "public domain" is not a world-wide
> > valid license when the author is alive, and probably a 3-clauses BSD
> > license can do better.
>
> I only mean that I've never seen a community growing with a "public
> domain" licence.
> Anyway I was experimenting with the Toom-Cook code, for large numbers,
> with some optimizations (http://ln.bodrato.it/waifi07_pdf) it get
> significantly faster.

I finally published my patch on my site, I had to choose a licence,
and decided
for GPLv3+... it is available on:
http://bodrato.it/software/toom.html#ltm

regards,m
--
http://bodrato.it/

[Felix Kronlage]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:58:40PM -0800, Pare wrote:

> I finally published my patch on my site, I had to choose a licence,
> and decided
> for GPLv3+... it is available on:
> http://bodrato.it/software/toom.html#ltm

might be a flamewar question, but why do you release a
contribution to a public domain project under something like
the gpl?

[Pare]

On Feb 10, 10:29 pm, Felix Kronlage <f...@hazardous.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:58:40PM -0800, Pare wrote:
> > I finally published my patch on my site, I had to choose a licence,
> > and decided
> > for GPLv3+... it is available on:
> > http://bodrato.it/software/toom.html#ltm
>
> might be a flamewar question, but why do you release a
> contribution to a public domain project under something like
> the gpl?

Because I dislike patents on software and I want to be sure that my
code
will never be included in products covered by patents. Anyway, anybody
is
free to avoid including my contribution, it was not included in the
project,
it is only published on my web-site.

Moreover, I live in Italy. Italian law on "authors rights" says that
some of the
rights the author have are inalienable. This means that the author can
not
drop them off, nor waive... "public domain" make sense in Italy only
for
authors who died, and many decades ago. Unfortunately I'm still
alive :-P

I repeat, my contribution does not correct any error of the library,
nor add any
peculiar functionality, it only speeds up an existing function. No
constraint...
The library perfectly works, even without me :-)

Bye,
Marco

--
http://bodrato.it/

[Axelle Apvrille]

Pare wrote:
> On Feb 10, 10:29 pm, Felix Kronlage <f...@hazardous.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:58:40PM -0800, Pare wrote:
>>> I finally published my patch on my site, I had to choose a licence,
>>> and decided
>>> for GPLv3+... it is available on:
>>> http://bodrato.it/software/toom.html#ltm
>> might be a flamewar question, but why do you release a
>> contribution to a public domain project under something like
>> the gpl?
>
> Because I dislike patents on software and I want to be sure that my
> code
> will never be included in products covered by patents. Anyway, anybody
> is
> free to avoid including my contribution, it was not included in the
> project,
> it is only published on my web-site.

Not that I want a flame war either, but the reason is wrong. Patents and
GPL are completely different issues. For instance, you cannot patent
something's that in the public domain ! (whereas you might be able to
patent GPL stuff).

Anyway, for next contributions, I would encourage people to put it
either in the *public domain*, or use licenses that do not 'contaminate'
projects (BSD...).

But I do not want at all to start a flame war as I said, and thanks for
your contribution.

I can't contribute much to this project on my side, aside perhaps from
time to time on documentation ? Let me know. I'd love to see Tom's work
go on.

Just to let you know, in my previous work, I used LibTom for the
following reasons:

- it is easy to integrate to projects. Just want AES ? Take the AES file
(or so). This is the MAIN reason.
- its license is clear (compared to OpenSSL). This was a very important
reasons to my boss and customers.
- it compiles on ARM platforms.
- the implementation is clean, simple, straight forward, and actually
quite efficient. At that time, I had benchmarked some algorithms, and it
was comparable to OpenSSL or Crypto++
- the documentation does not cover all aspects but for those covered, it
is accurate.

Regards
Axelle

[Pare]

On Feb 11, 10:08 am, Axelle Apvrille <axelle_apvri...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Not that I want a flame war either, but the reason is wrong. Patents and
> GPL are completely different issues. For instance, you cannot patent
> something's that in the public domain ! (whereas you might be able to
> patent GPL stuff).

Ehm... You can disagree, or dislike my reasons. But, I'm very sorry
I'm forced to say, they are not "wrong".
You can patent an algorithm, then release some code implementing
it with the most liberal copyright licence (and I have to underline it
again: "public domain" in my country is not a "clear licence", it is a
"nonsense"), then ask for royalties to people using it, because of the
patent.
Patents and copyright "are completely different issues", as you said.
You can take a "public domain" code, include it in a patented
software and distribute it asking for royalties. You can NOT do this
[1]
with my code, because you must agree with GPLv3 to distribute it.
That's all.

Anyway, the original author said "do whatever you want", this means
I can decide not to contribute, to contribute with a commercial
licence, to contribute with a free software licence, to contribute as
anonymous with no licence at all... I decided for GPLv3. Couldn't I?

> Just to let you know, in my previous work, I used LibTom for the
> following reasons:
>
> - it is easy to integrate to projects. Just want AES ? Take the AES file
> (or so). This is the MAIN reason.

You mean "LibTom is a good piece of software". I obviously agree,
otherwise I'd not have given my contribution :-)

Regards,
Marco

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#section11

--
http://bodrato.it/software/

[Axelle Apvrille]

Pare wrote:
> On Feb 11, 10:08 am, Axelle Apvrille <axelle_apvri...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>> Not that I want a flame war either, but the reason is wrong. Patents and
>> GPL are completely different issues. For instance, you cannot patent
>> something's that in the public domain ! (whereas you might be able to
>> patent GPL stuff).
>
> Ehm... You can disagree, or dislike my reasons. But, I'm very sorry
> I'm forced to say, they are not "wrong".

Hi,

Don't take me wrong: I do appreciate you are contributing, and that's
the most important whatever license is chosen.

I just had the feeling you have chosen GPL, kind of 'by default' and to
that part, I just wanted to argue that GPL is not necessarily the best
choice for LibTom. In particular, the contaminating aspect of the
library can be a nuisance to people.

But, for sure, as far as you are concerned, *you* choose what *you*
want, of course !

> You can patent an algorithm, then release some code implementing
> it with the most liberal copyright licence (and I have to underline it
> again: "public domain" in my country is not a "clear licence", it is a
> "nonsense"), then ask for royalties to people using it, because of the
> patent.

Yes, true.

> Patents and copyright "are completely different issues", as you said.
> You can take a "public domain" code, include it in a patented
> software and distribute it asking for royalties.

Yes and no. You can always ask royalties for the part that concerns your
patent, but you are not getting any royalties for the public domain code
you include.

> You can NOT do this [1]
> with my code, because you must agree with GPLv3 to distribute it.

I am not sure of this at all. I mean, yes, we have to agree to GPLv3,
but I do not think this implies you cannot include patented parts
(patented software - if legal - or patented ideas).

Kind regards
Axelle.

[David Kelly]

On Feb 11, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Axelle Apvrille wrote:

> Not that I want a flame war either, but the reason is wrong. Patents
> and
> GPL are completely different issues. For instance, you cannot patent
> something's that in the public domain ! (whereas you might be able to
> patent GPL stuff).

There is a lot of wrongness with GPL, but it appears to me that Pare
application of GPL does what he intended.

GPL is a copyright virus that infects anything it touches. One can not
use GPLed code and restrict redistribution of the finished product. So
there is no point in patenting other parts of the project.

I think patents are great. That GPL proponents and other anti-patent
forces do not realize that patents are an early form of exactly what
the "free software" thing is all about. That in exchange for
disclosing the details of the invention one gets a limited time
exclusive. But then after that term and for all eternity the idea is
free for anyone to use. And in being well documented in the first
place it prevents others from making the same claim, and could help
others make use of the idea after the patent expires.

Before patents one could claim ownership of their invention for
eternity.