Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:39:50 +0200 From: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" <jeroen@vangelderen.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, jcwells@u.washington.edu, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New bind not completely open source... why GPL is not always Message-ID: <37DF6966.81B5B9AB@vangelderen.org> References: <199909150349.UAA15819@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > > > 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. "The MD5 algorithm is being placed in the public domain for review and possible adoption as a standard." "The MD4 algorithm is being placed in the public domain for review and possible adoption as a standard." Even if they were patented, one could use SHA(-1) or RIPEMD-160 or Tiger. Cheers, Jeroen -- Jeroen C. van Gelderen - jeroen@vangelderen.org Interesting read: http://www.vcnet.com/bms/ JLF 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?37DF6966.81B5B9AB>