Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 03:49:21 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, jcwells@u.washington.edu, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New bind not completely open source... why GPL is not always Message-ID: <199909150349.UAA15819@usr06.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <000001beff02$fb800080$021d85d1@youwant.to> from "David Schwartz" at Sep 14, 99 03:46:28 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It is obvious to me that the reason for the license restriction > > is to obtain a special dispensation for RSA for the use of its > > US software patents and code licensed thereof in free software. > > I'm quite curious why they simply didn't use other algorithms (such as MD5, > DSS and DH) that are free from patent restrictions. As far as I know, > there's nothing you can do with the patented encryption algorithms that you > can't do without them. MD-5 is an RSA patented algorithm, as is MD-4. What you can't do without them is DNSSEC. The DNSTSIG (transaction signatures) is flawed in a number of ways, including that it has a small replay window built into it, and it relies on certificates all the way to the root, and it has been made clear that this will not happen so long as the algorithms are on patent and/or can't be exported. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909150349.UAA15819>