Joshua Kinard wrote: > > I'm not entirely sure what you'd like to ask the libtomcrypt authors. > > "We think there may be patents, but we don't know. Did you consider > > that?" > > No, actually, I was thinking something more along the lines of "Hey, are you > aware of these supposed patent claims about ECC/ECDSA implementations that > Red Hat says exist, and if so, did you do any research on them that you > could possibly share that led you to feeling confident to release your > implementation into the public domain". > > But I am open to better language.
There's not neccessarily a conflict between a patented idea and a public domain implementation of that idea. Take a fictional example: You and I independently invent the same thing. You patent it, then write and publish an LGPL implementation. I, ignorant of your accomplishment, later write and publish a different implementation, placing it in the public domain. You having a patent doesn't neccessarily matter to me publishing my implementation. It can be problematic for *users*. They might violate your patent terms (or not; it depends on your terms in the patent) if they use *any* implementation without having licensed the right to use your patented idea from you. (Of course only until your patent expires.) What users have to do is determined by the terms set forth in the patent. E.g.: the QR-code patent has (I believe) not expired yet but has always permitted using the idea without any explicit license under the condition that all use is actually spec conformant. The license for a software isn't connected to patents unless it explicitly states so, like GPL-3 Section 11 or Apache-2.0 Section 3. Public domain has no license text, so can have no such language. :) You seem to expect some due diligence from libtomcrypt authors before having decided to publish their work and I don't find that reasonable. I hope I've managed to explain why? Kind regards //Peter
