On 27 March 2013 21:03, Ben Laurie <b...@links.org> wrote: > The OSF is not actually the one that would benefit from such a > licence, so the whole idea that it (or we) should pay for one seems > weird to me. > Well, I wasn't actually suggesting that the OSF should pay for it itself, merely that the OSF could be the conduit for organising the licensing (in much the same way as it has been the conduit for organising the FIPS certification). The licensing only impacts US users of OpenSSL (as I understand it the patents under discussion here are only applicable within the US), and therefore the benefits would be largely felt by its customers -although in reality we all benefit by removing a blocker from integrating a mode into the code base with some significant advantages (OCB is supposedly significantly faster than GCM).
If it comes to paying for it then I would hope that it may be possible to achieve sufficient corporate sponsorship to cover the costs (as I said in my original email). However, at this stage, all that is required is for someone to open a discussion with Phil Rogaway to see what can be achieved (maybe he will grant OpenSSL a waiver without any money changing hands at all). My suggestion is that that discussion could be initiated by the OSF (it seems a natural fit to me)...but really it could be anyone from the core dev team who can claim to speak for the project. Matt ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
