> > DSA?  I assume you mean because RSA claim that their patent covers
> > the "concept" of public key crypto?  If you buy that line, you might
> > as well give up programming entirely.
> 
> RSA have a patent that they _claim_ covers DSA.  The NSA, on the other
> hand, has rather publically stated that they invented the relevant
> technique first and can document it.  Nobody seems to think RSA would get
> far in any court with an infringement claim against someone using DSA,
> and RSA, despite making a lot of noise early on, have yet to sue anyone...
> 
> It's clearly not up to me, but I don't see the point of removing DSA.
> Does any other user or developer?

No. I only mentioned DSA in order to prove a point -- deal with
political realities and not legal fantasies. For what it's worth,
I believe the Schnorr patents (now owned by RSA, Inc) to technically
cover DSA, as much as the RSA patents cover RSA. But `who cares',
for isn't politically tennable for RSA to sue NetBSD, Inc over DSA,
and if the DSA political climate were to change, there's an awefully
line ahead of us, including NIST and you-know-who.

Julian.