license for SHA1 implementation?

[pabs3]

The SHA1 implementation in this repo by @B-Con does not appear to have any copyright or license information in it. I suggest that it needs to be either relicensed by @B-Con to the MIT license, or replaced with another freely licensed implementation, for example by linking with libmd.

PS: the two files should probably be updated from @B-Con's crypto-algorithms repo.

/*********************************************************************
* Filename:   sha1.c
* Author:     Brad Conte (brad AT bradconte.com)
* Copyright:
* Disclaimer: This code is presented "as is" without any guarantees.
* Details:    Implementation of the SHA1 hashing algorithm.
              Algorithm specification can be found here:
               * http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-2/fips180-2withchangenotice.pdf
              This implementation uses little endian byte order.
*********************************************************************/

/*********************************************************************
* Filename:   sha1.h
* Author:     Brad Conte (brad AT bradconte.com)
* Copyright:
* Disclaimer: This code is presented "as is" without any guarantees.
* Details:    Defines the API for the corresponding SHA1 implementation.
*********************************************************************/

[pabs3]

PS: I note that the README.md file for the other project does say this:

This code is released into the public domain free of any restrictions. The author requests acknowledgement if the code is used, but does not require it. This code is provided free of any liability and without any quality claims by the author.

[pabs3]

@B-Con I think it would be useful to update the headers of all the files in the crypto-algorithms repo to mention that all the files are in the public domain. Also, since the public domain doesn't exist in some parts of the world, it would be good to place the code under the CC0 license in those jurisdictions.

Just switching to a linkable library like libmd would probably be a better idea though.