On Apr 4, 2014, at 3:05 , Ken Rune Helland <[email protected]> wrote: > [SNIP] > > Just make sure to keep strait on the difference between > patents and copyright. > > The code is protected by copyright. The ones implementing it should never see > the GLP-code, just implement it from the specification of the algorithm. Then > somebody else may write > unit tests to compare the new implementation to the GLP one. Then there is no > way to claim the new code is tainted by the GLP-code and you can use any > licence you see fit.
GPL is not just a copyright - it is a license that defines the conditions upon which you may or may not use the implementation and whatever else that relates to it. This last part is the problem addressed by the LGPL. NTRU patent holders refused to use it. > On the other hand, if the ones holding the patent have given a generic > license to the GPL-implementation, they might be willing to give a license to > another open-source implementation. It could be worth it to discuss it with > them. It has already been brought up to their attention, and the answer was short and sweet: "no way". -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crypto++ Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
