On 04/04/2014 02:13 PM, Mobile Mouse wrote: > On Apr 4, 2014, at 3:05 , Ken Rune Helland <k...@csc.no> wrote: >> [SNIP] >> >> Just make sure to keep strait on the difference between >> patents and copyright. >> >> The code is protected by copyright. The ones implementing it should never >> see the GLP-code, just implement it from the specification of the algorithm. >> Then somebody else may write >> unit tests to compare the new implementation to the GLP one. Then there is >> no way to claim the new code is tainted by the GLP-code and you can use any >> licence you see fit. > > GPL is not just a copyright - it is a license that defines the conditions > upon which you may or may not use the implementation and whatever else that > relates to it. This last part is the problem addressed by the LGPL. NTRU > patent holders refused to use it. > >> On the other hand, if the ones holding the patent have given a generic >> license to the GPL-implementation, they might be willing to give a license >> to another open-source implementation. It could be worth it to discuss it >> with them. > > It has already been brought up to their attention, and the answer was short > and sweet: "no way". >
This doesn't especially mean that it can't be done in 'patent-sane' countries or regions. If someone could tell me that there will not be a legal problem (for me) if I implement it, I will start asap. R PS. @Mobile Mouse: I hit the wrong button, you received this twice.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
