On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now, it is possible that RSA just _might_ launch a frivolous lawsuit with
> the intention of trying to scare people away from using openssl (and hense
> paying licensing fees to RSA). There are many lawsuits of this nature.
> If so, some poor smuck
hello.
> You don't play poker do you. There is not way that RSA has any claim to
> openSSL at all and outside of the US they have no claim to patent
> protection either. Of course, if you were a salesman sitting behind an
> RSA desk and you had someone dumb enough to ask - what do you think the
You don't play poker do you. There is not way that RSA has any claim to
openSSL at all and outside of the US they have no claim to patent
protection either. Of course, if you were a salesman sitting behind an
RSA desk and you had someone dumb enough to ask - what do you think the
response will b
From: Bill Rebey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bill.Rebey> "We own EAY, thus we own SSLeay/OpenSSL"
This is of course pure and simple bullshit. SSLeay was distributed
under a "free" license, and there's no way it can be taken away
retroactively from the versions that came out (anything until version
0.9.
From: Harry W. Waddell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 4:56 PM
To: Bill Rebey
Subject:Re: Legality - just heated up
I would expect that 70K was just an opening bid. I don't know if you've
shipped products already, but if you haven'
In the README file there is a section marked PATENTS.
The only thing that really needs to be added, is that the patent on
the RSA algorithm expires on Sept 20, 2000, but then *everybody*
knows that. :)
Tell your boss that OpenSSL has some patented intellectual property
and you need some time with
I believe that he did read this stuff. From the initial posting in
this thread it appears that the RSA sales force is now claiming that
because Eric A. Young is now an employee of RSA and because the SSLeay
source code was used as the foundation for a commercial RSA product
that RSA is now claimi
On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 05:29:36PM -0400, Bill Rebey wrote:
>
> How can I find out, from a legally sound source, what the truth is?
>
Spend a couple of minutes reading the license:
http://www.openssl.org/source/cvs/exp/LICENSE?rev=1.6&hideattic=1&sortbydate=0
Since the original EAY license menti
This may be related to the fact RSA has a patent expiring this September.
Bill Rebey wrote:
> I just got off the phone with, among others, John Riley at RSA. He's
> claiming things like (paraphrased):
>
> "It's flat out illegal to use OpenSSL for Commercial purposes"
> "Even if you use OpenSS
I just got off the phone with, among others, John Riley at RSA. He's
claiming things like (paraphrased):
"It's flat out illegal to use OpenSSL for Commercial purposes"
"Even if you use OpenSSL, it still uses RSA technologies that you have to
pay royalties for (regardless whether it uses RSA enc
10 matches
Mail list logo
