On Jul 14,  4:15pm, "Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
} jnemeth@victoria.tc.ca (John Nemeth) writes:
} > } 	rc5  (patented in the US by RSA)
} > } 	rsa  (patented in the US)
} > } 	dsa  (patent claimed by RSA in the US)
} > 
} >      The fact that something is patented in US should NOT be used a
} > reason for removing it from cryptosrc-intl.
} 
} Speak for yourself only.

     Unless stated otherwise, it should be assume that a person is
speaking for themself.

} The purpose of a free software project is to produce code that can be
} used easily and without encumbrance. Using code patented in large
} chunks of the world is, to say the least, unpleasant. Besides which,
} good alternatives exist for all the patented technologies.

     Although, the US is a fairly large country, I didn't realise that
it constituted a large chunk of the world.  Nobody has made any claim
that the above items are patented anywhere other then the US.  The US
has some rather braindead laws regarding cryptography, which the rest
of the world really doesn't care about.  As for the "good
alternatives", they are only useful, if they are widely used.  You
can't communicate if the other guy doesn't speak the same language.

}-- End of excerpt from "Perry E. Metzger"