Subject: Re: Background on cryptosrc-intl proposal
To: Michael C. Richardson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
Date: 06/23/1999 10:51:36
"Michael C. Richardson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 1) The RSA patent was thrown out of court in the UK, and has never been
> tested as a result in any other European court.
> [ ... ]
> 4) openssl can be built with RSAREF
justifying use of SSL as OK for these reasons is faulty:
> 5) the crypto modules will have lots of import restrictions in lots of places
> (no longer France, but Singapour and China for instance)
However, it's intended that one of those places is _not_ the U.S
(unless the U.S. does something stupid and outlaws domestic use of
strong crypto, rather than just export).
One of the intents of the international crypto bits is that they be
importable into the U.S. (and other countries which allow use of
strong crypto) and be as usable as the rest of the sources, for
commercial or non-commercial use.
After all, if the intent is to, over time, deprecate the U.S. crypto
bits (at least for most users' use, even in the U.S.), then there's no
choice about this.
Chris Demetriou - email@example.com - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.