Subject: Re: cryptosrc-intl
To: John Nemeth <jnemeth@victoria.tc.ca>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
List: tech-security
Date: 07/14/1999 13:43:19
>>>>> "John" == John Nemeth <jnemeth@victoria.tc.ca> writes:
John> } not done so. I think my command silently failed. (due to -f)
John> } I will yank things at 3pm Wednesday.
John> } The list is:
John> } rc2 (trade secret of RSA)
John> } rc4 (trade secret of RSA)
John> As far as I understand trade secret law, if the secret gets out,
John> you're SOL, so tough luck for RSA.
John> } rc5 (patented in the US by RSA)
John> } rsa (patented in the US)
John> } dsa (patent claimed by RSA in the US)
John> The fact that something is patented in US should NOT be used a
John> reason for removing it from cryptosrc-intl.
Okay, so nothing needs to be removed then.
John> I do not see any reason at all for removing the five items above
John> from cryptosrc-intl, not withstanding the belly aching of a few people
John> that aren't even on core.
Uh, like nobody is on core anymore :-)
John> } idea (patent claimed in a dozen European countries)
John> But, not everywhere. This one is debatable, but it could be
John> argued that it should be left in. This is the only one that can
John> reasonably be argued that it should be removed.
John> } Are there other things that are intellectually encumbered in any place
John> } in the world?
John> Unless, it's encumbered in a significant fraction of the world,
John> then who cares. The entire userbase shouldn't be penalised just
John> because of the stupid policies of one government.
There are those that feel that NetBSD Inc. becomes liable if anyone
imports the source to a place where the patents apply.
] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions| firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [