"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:

> 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.
> 
> 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,

We're not talking compiled binaries -- we're talking source. Source
just the same as source of any other free software development
project. Source just like you see on ftp mirrors all around the
world. When appropriating source into the NetBSD tree, it doesn't take
on magical qualities that it never had before (at least until we start
hacking upon it ;). We should think twice before emasculating the
OpenSSL tree, whos primarily European and Australian development team,
feels *no* such compulsion.

In terms of Patents, the idea that unused source is the same as
applying the patent in an infringable manner is just as silly as
saying that possession of a patent description to a plastic Jesus
is the same as the plastic Jesus itself. pas une pipe.

Julian.