> Why? We have an explicit licence enabling its use - so why shouldn't it > be on? > > Matt
You do, but I don't, and other users of OpenSSL don't either. According to my legal advice at least - your Lawyer may disagree. The linked pdf doesn't solve the problem apparently. That there is an *issued* patent on the algorithm at all immediately makes it "controversial", and probably doomed to die. Compare what the BBC did with the Dirac patents - the patent was publicly filed and then they explicitly let the application lapse without getting the patent issued within the timeframe. Once a patent is actually issued, there is the always someone who is going to have a problem. So the question is: Why did they pay for the Patent unless there is an intention to require Royalties? Are you or OpenSSL going to going to pay my royalty fees and/or legal costs if I am found to be infringing on this known patent? If you are not happy to be responsible for legal costs, then I recommend you disable it by default to avoid any such confusion... _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
