Re: [OT] use of patented algorithms in the kernel ok or not?

From: Stan Bubrouski (stan_at_ccs.neu.edu)
Date: 12/21/03

  • Next message: H. Peter Anvin: "Linux 2.6.0 patch: lib/inflate.c"
    To: linux-kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
    Date:	Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:11:14 -0500
    
    
    

    On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 14:55, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
    > The question is "What toes are OK to step onto".
    >

    I totally understand this. To a point.

    > e.g.
    > To the best of my knowledge it should be illegal to distribute 2.6
    > kernel in France because AFAIK it is illegal to use encryption there.
    > (If not France, there are other countries that fit)

    True, but that has always been the case.

    > (And you remember that this same problem was only resolved a few years
    > ago for the U.S.! Otherwise the crypto-stuff would have been in kernel
    > for years!)
    >

    This really isn't a crypto question though, and this has financial
    ramifications here as well. Violating a French law isn't as scary to me
    as having to hire a patent lawyer here in the US...

    > So the only question is "Is it OK to step on the U.S. toe?".
    > I guess there are other countries on this small planet (>200 IIRC) where
    > the current linux kernel has it's "problems(tm)" here and there.
    >

    Hey I'm all for allowing the use of patented algorithms in the kernel,
    but I think they should be separate trees or patches that can be applied
    and hosted elsewhere, the same way crypto was afor a long time. I think
    the idea should be to step on as few toes as possible, not knowingly do
    it because it can be done...that's all. You have to remember, patents
    here are frightening, and you damned well better have a lot of money if
    you are going to need a patent lawyer, that is a commodity most of us
    can't afford.

    -sb

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Bis denn

    
    

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



  • Next message: H. Peter Anvin: "Linux 2.6.0 patch: lib/inflate.c"

    Relevant Pages

    • 2.4 and cryptoloop
      ... I see that recent 2.4 has crypto. ... will do cryptoloop using the kernel as released? ... Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [PROPOSAL/PATCH] Fortuna PRNG in /dev/random
      ... > or not cryptoapi needs to be mandatory in the kernel, ... If they're not using ipsec, or crypto loop devices, etc., ... As far as I know embedded folk do not want the crypto API to be mandatory, ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • RE: 802.1x support
      ... The kernel has the support of Crypto used, I don't know if you are talking ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Announce loop-AES-v3.0b file/swap crypto package
      ... Regarding the "backdoor", perhaps it is a poor choice of words, but clearly ... |>>Nothing about kernel crypto is backdoored. ... confusing the kernel with util-linux is a strange trick. ... Every tried Jari's loop-AES module? ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [PATCH resend][CRYPTO]: RSA algorithm patch
      ... > reason to _not_ do asymmetric crypto in the kernel either. ... > -- why break strong crypto algorithms such as RSA by implementing them ... duplicating the PKCS padding for themselves! ...
      (Linux-Kernel)