Greg Ewing schrieb:
> That can't be right, because it would mean that
> anyone who runs a program that contains a
> patented algorithm, even one bought or otherwise
> obtained from someone else, would need to
> individually negotiate a licence with the
> patent owner. That clearly doesn't happen.
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Perform it: do the steps that the algorithm says you should
> do, or let a machine do it. IOW, run the code.
That can't be right, because it would mean that
anyone who runs a program that contains a
patented algorithm, even one bought or otherwise
obtained from someone el
Greg Ewing schrieb:
>> In the context of an encryption algorithm, the right to
>> use would be the most prominent one; you wouldn't be
>> allowed to use the algorithm unless you have a patent
>> license.
>
> But what does "use" *mean* in relation to an
> algorithm?
Perform it: do the steps that t
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> In the context of an encryption algorithm, the right to
> use would be the most prominent one; you wouldn't be
> allowed to use the algorithm unless you have a patent
> license.
But what does "use" *mean* in relation to an
algorithm?
--
Greg
_
On 8/8/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If distributing the source doesn't violate the patent,
> and distributing a binary doesn't violate the patent,
> then what *would* constitute a violation of a software
> patent?
> Writing new code using the algorithm? Compiling
> something which
> Strictly speaking, it is dropping a feature: a connection that can get
> established with 2.5b3 might not get established with 2.5c1, assuming
> a server that requires some IDEA-based cipher.
>
> > (any sane SSL connection will negotiate AES or 3DES
> > as its cipher; IDEA isn't required)
>
> O
Gregory P. Smith schrieb:
> disabling/enabling a cipher in openssl that isn't commonly used and
> isn't even directly exposed via any API to a python user hardly sounds
> like dropping a feature to me.
Strictly speaking, it is dropping a feature: a connection that can get
established with 2.5b3 mi
Greg Ewing schrieb:
> If distributing the source doesn't violate the patent,
> and distributing a binary doesn't violate the patent,
> then what *would* constitute a violation of a software
> patent?
IANAL, but AFAICT, the rights controlled by patent law
are the right to make, to use, to sell, to
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I personally don't think there is a risk
> distributing the code (if there was, distribution of OpenSSL would also
> be a risk); anybody /using/ a patented algorithm would violate the
> patent.
If distributing the source doesn't violate the patent,
and distributing a binar
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 04:54:44PM -0400, Jim Jewett wrote:
> On 8/8/06, "Martin v. L?wis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jim Jewett schrieb:
> > > The OpenSSL library implements some algorithms that are patented. The
> > > source code should be fine to (re)distribute, but but there may be a
> > >
On 8/8/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Jewett schrieb:
> > The OpenSSL library implements some algorithms that are patented. The
> > source code should be fine to (re)distribute, but but there may be a
> > slight legal risk with distributing a binary.
> I don't want to chan
Jim Jewett schrieb:
> The OpenSSL library implements some algorithms that are patented. The
> source code should be fine to (re)distribute, but but there may be a
> slight legal risk with distributing a binary.
I don't want to change the build process in that way (i.e. dropping a
feature) just be
12 matches
Mail list logo
