William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Feedback from Ben via legal-discuss, since his httpd-dev list seems
to have fallen over and can't get up.
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: [Fwd: Re: Thoughts on Camillia in openssl binaries?]
From:
Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:28:57 +0100
To:
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
ASF Legal Discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
A thread from [EMAIL PROTECTED], we are considering adding a newer algorithm
to a binary 0.9.8 build of openssl. Introduces a patent question, with
what is almost but not quite a complete grant of license. Looking for
any feedback if this would concern us, since Tom raises the point that
it gets interesting with Firefox 3 possibly using this algorithm.
I should point out that just because some loon contributes an algorithm
to OpenSSL doesn't mean you need to implement it.
If there's any encumbrance, then I see even less reason to implement
(less than "none", that is).
The Japanese export restrictions apply to all algorithms (including the
current ones), not just Camellia. Camellia itself imposes no additional
restrictions.
Camellia is in RFC4132, and is recommended by the by the
EU NESSIE and the Japanese CRYPTREC organizations - but not by any U.S.
organizations (...that I know of...)
Perhaps Ben meant "some loons" (plural). Unfortunately, there is no
word for groups of loons, as with "gaggle of geese" etc.
-tom-
