In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Rubin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You cannot apply for a patent for something that has been in an unpatented
> product for more than a year, in the US (IANAL etc.). So RC4 and RC2 are
> unpatented and will remain so. There was a patent application for RC5 and
> that might be what you are thinking of.
No, I knew about the RC5 patent, but distinctly remember seeing a claim
that one of the reasons why RSADSI finally published RC2 is in order to
prepare a patent application. I have never seen a confirmation of that
though.
> I don't know if the RC5 patent was
> granted.
It was. US patent number 5835600, granted to Ron Rivest, 11/10/98.
> IMHO, RC2 and RC5 are not very interesting ciphers; RC4 is the one
> that's widely used and interesting.
True, RC4 would provide better interoperatibility with the installed
server base, but AFAIK some servers do support only RC2 and RC4, so
if RC4 could not be supported for legal reasons then supporting RC2
might still be better than nothing...
--
Holger Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.nordicglobal.com
NO COMMERCIAL SOLICITATION !
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
