On Jul 13, 11:16pm, Michael Richardson wrote:
} 
} >>>>> "Perry" == Perry E Metzger <perry@piermont.com> writes:
}     Perry> There was a long debate about what needed to be done to cryptosrc-intl 
}     Perry> vis a vis a number of pieces of code that probably shouldn't have been 
}     Perry> imported in the first place.
} 
}     Perry> I don't recall having seen anything done by Michael about the code
}     Perry> that obviously needs to be yanked. Am I mistaken? If so, apologies.
} 
}     Perry> If I'm not mistaken, someone should do something about this soon.
} 
}   Well, I thought I yanked the code. I noticed yesterday that I seem to have
} not done so. I think my command silently failed. (due to -f)
}   I will yank things at 3pm Wednesday.
}   The list is:
} 	rc2  (trade secret of RSA)
} 	rc4  (trade secret of RSA)

     As far as I understand trade secret law, if the secret gets out,
you're SOL, so tough luck for RSA.

} 	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.

     I do not see any reason at all for removing the five items above
from cryptosrc-intl, not withstanding the belly aching of a few people
that aren't even on core.

} 	idea (patent claimed in a dozen European countries)

     But, not everywhere.  This one is debatable, but it could be
argued that it should be left in.  This is the only one that can
reasonably be argued that it should be removed.

}   Are there other things that are intellectually encumbered in any place
} in the world?

     Unless, it's encumbered in a significant fraction of the world,
then who cares.  The entire userbase shouldn't be penalised just
because of the stupid policies of one government.

}-- End of excerpt from Michael Richardson