|author||Simon L. B. Nielsen <simon@FreeBSD.org>||2009-06-07 19:56:18 +0000|
|committer||Simon L. B. Nielsen <simon@FreeBSD.org>||2009-06-07 19:56:18 +0000|
Import OpenSSL 0.9.8k.vendor/openssl/0.9.8k
Notes: svn path=/vendor-crypto/openssl/dist/; revision=193645 svn path=/vendor-crypto/openssl/0.9.8k/; revision=193646; tag=vendor/openssl/0.9.8k
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/ssleay.txt')
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/doc/ssleay.txt b/doc/ssleay.txt
index c75312911f96..a8b04d7059a3 100644
@@ -3800,9 +3800,9 @@ made public on sci.crypt in Sep 1994 (RC4) and Feb 1996 (RC2). I have
copies of the origional postings if people are interested. RSA I believe
claim that they were 'trade-secrets' and that some-one broke an NDA in
revealing them. Other claim they reverse engineered the algorithms from
-compiled binaries. If the algorithms were reverse engineered, I belive
+compiled binaries. If the algorithms were reverse engineered, I believe
RSA had no legal leg to stand on. If an NDA was broken, I don't know.
-Regardless, RSA, I belive, is willing to go to court over the issue so
+Regardless, RSA, I believe, is willing to go to court over the issue so
licencing is probably the best idea, or at least talk to them.
If there are people who actually know more about this, pease let me know, I
don't want to vilify or spread miss-information if I can help it.