Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 02, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The patent makes it non-free, so does the new license.
> Really? In my country RSA is not patented, why should I care about what
> happens in someone else country?
Please have a look at our policy.
-
On Oct 02, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The patent makes it non-free, so does the new license.
Really? In my country RSA is not patented, why should I care about what
happens in someone else country?
--
ciao,
Marco
Quoting Bob Nielsen:
> Does anyone know when the LZW patent expires?
According to
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US04558302__ it was awarded on
June 20, 1983. This means that it will expire on June 20 or 21, 2003.
--
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))
(quote (lambda (x
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 11:57:07PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 08:54:48AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > PS: the RSA patent expires in 2001 (or is it 2002?), anyway.
>
> 20 September 2000.
Does anyone know when the LZW patent expires?
--
Bob Nielsen I
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 08:54:48AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> PS: the RSA patent expires in 2001 (or is it 2002?), anyway.
20 September 2000.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux developer
GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
> > > [ RSA is no longer included. ]
> > > [ IDEA is no longer included. ]
> > IDEA was the only part of ssh that made it non-free, prohibiting
> > commercial use.
> Wrong, RSA makes it non-free, and so does their license.
Wrong, RSA makes it non-us. I can freely use RSA here.
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 10:06:24AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> They use libssl, which begs the question why isn't libssl in
> non-US/non-free?
i thought that only copyright/license and *not* patent issues determined
whether we considered something to be free or non-free.
e.g. libssl is completely
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They use libssl, which begs the question why isn't libssl in non-US/non-free?
Uh, because I keep forgetting. I've been meaning to do that since Guy
split non-US up... I guess I'll go file a bug against ftp.debian.org.
--
James
Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we step into the "patents make something non-free" trap, then we
> probably have a lot of things in main that should be moved to
> non-free because they technically infringe on someone's stupid patent.
Living in the UK, where there are currently no so
Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:06 +1000 1999-10-02, Herbert Xu wrote:
>>They use libssl, which begs the question why isn't libssl in non-US/non-free?
> Uh, because it isn't non-free?
Here's a quote from the policy:
`Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with t
At 10:06 +1000 1999-10-02, Herbert Xu wrote:
They use libssl, which begs the question why isn't libssl in non-US/non-free?
Uh, because it isn't non-free?
If we step into the "patents make something non-free" trap, then we
probably have a lot of things in main that should be moved to
non-free beca
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1 Oct 1999, James Troup wrote:
>> [ RSA is no longer included. ]
> Wait wait, doesn't this mean that ssh RSA authentication is gone as well??
> Did they replace it with DSS/DH or what? IMHO ssh would cease to be very
> usefull as a security tool wi
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 05:39:12PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 02:16:03PM -0700, Ryan Murray wrote:
> > > restrictive); see below for details.
> > >
> > > [ RSA is no longer included. ]
> > > [ IDEA is no longer included. ]
> >
> > IDEA was the only part of ssh that made i
On 01-Oct-99 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On 1 Oct 1999, James Troup wrote:
>
>> [ RSA is no longer included. ]
>
> Wait wait, doesn't this mean that ssh RSA authentication is gone as well??
> Did they replace it with DSS/DH or what? IMHO ssh would cease to be very
> usefull as a security tool wi
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 02:16:03PM -0700, Ryan Murray wrote:
> > restrictive); see below for details.
> >
> > [ RSA is no longer included. ]
> > [ IDEA is no longer included. ]
>
> IDEA was the only part of ssh that made it non-free, prohibiting
> commercial use.
Wrong, RSA makes it non-free, an
On 1 Oct 1999, James Troup wrote:
> [ RSA is no longer included. ]
Wait wait, doesn't this mean that ssh RSA authentication is gone as well??
Did they replace it with DSS/DH or what? IMHO ssh would cease to be very
usefull as a security tool without a public key mechism, not to mention
that exis
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 09:52:42PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > I am pretty sure that SSH was never free software. Could you show
> > me the license on the version that they started with?
>
> -&<-&<-&<-&<-&<
> This file is part of the
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am pretty sure that SSH was never free software. Could you show
> me the license on the version that they started with?
-&<-&<-&<-&<-&<
This file is part of the ssh software, Copyright (c
I am pretty sure that SSH was never free software. Could you show me
the license on the version that they started with?
Is there any chance that you could put me in touch with the OpenBSD
people who are working on this?
19 matches
Mail list logo
