From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jan 30 05:32:30 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA29355
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 05:32:30 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from mail.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA29344
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 05:32:25 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from dmaddox@scsn.net)
Received: from rhiannon.scsn.net ([208.133.153.13]) by mail.scsn.net
          (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c)
          ID# 0-41950U6000L1100S0) with ESMTP id AAA198;
          Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:30:30 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by rhiannon.scsn.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id IAA00347;
	Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:31:50 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from root)
Message-ID: <19980130083149.48975@scsn.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:31:49 -0500
From: dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox)
To: Andrew Gordon <arg@arg1.demon.co.uk>, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: The BSD License
Reply-To: dmaddox@scsn.net
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Gordon <arg@arg1.demon.co.uk>,
	Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, hackers@freebsd.org
References: <199801300203.CAA26796@awfulhak.org> <Pine.BSF.3.91.980130112910.552A-100000@server.arg.sj.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.980130112910.552A-100000@server.arg.sj.co.uk>; from Andrew Gordon on Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 12:06:49PM +0000
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG
X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe hackers"

On Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 12:06:49PM +0000, Andrew Gordon wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Brian Somers wrote:
> > I'm not sure that this is the correct question either.
> > 
> > The rfc seems to indicate to me that they are not willing to give 
> > their software away without at least an NDA.  That in itself is not a 
> > problem if they're willing to tell us (or me) how to implement the 
> > algorithm (and don't place any restrictions on that knowledge).  If 
> > they were willing to do this, I would have thought it would already 
> > be explained in the rfc.  Unfortunately it isn't.
> 
> Are you sure?  The RFC implies that the information it contains, plus the 
> information in ANSI X3.241-1994 is a complete definition of the protocol.

This seems to be right...  Anybody have access to ANSI X3.241-1994?