Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

ay use and > modify the software and redistribute as part of a Debian distribution? > > Cheers, > > William > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk > <mailto:ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>> wrote: > William

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

< ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > William Whyte writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent > status"): > > Sorry for having let this drift for so long. Way back at the start > > of the discussion, as we got into the discussion of the FOSS

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

William Whyte writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"): > Sorry for having let this drift for so long. Way back at the start > of the discussion, as we got into the discussion of the FOSS > Exception, there seems to have been an assumption that

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

org.uk> wrote: > William Whyte writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent > status"): > > On the FOSS Exception, > > > https://github.com/NTRUOpenSourceProject/ntru-crypto/blob/master/FOSS%20Exception.md > : > > the intent here is to prote

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

William Whyte writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"): > On the FOSS Exception, > https://github.com/NTRUOpenSourceProject/ntru-crypto/blob/master/FOSS%20Exception.md: > the intent here is to protect the effectiveness of the GPL. As noted, &

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Hi all -- any thoughts on this? Would it make things easier if we changed to a "whitelist" license policy, or is the rationale below for the structure of the FOSS exception sufficient? Cheers, William On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:55 PM, William Whyte wrote: > Hi

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Hi all, Sorry for the delay responding: I've been traveling, then sick. On patents: Yes, the license at https://github.com/NTRUOpenSourceProject/ntru-crypto/blob/master/LICENSE.md grants a license to use the patents under GPL v2 or higher. On the FOSS Exception,

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Do not give up hope, no change has yet occurred, and more voices calling attention to the problematic consequences of this choice may yet change their minds. :-) > I have also repeatedly written to them in order to recommend the > adoption of the 3-clause BSD license [2], the Expat license

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:03:53 -0800 Jim Wright wrote: > I would add that the OpenSSL folks have stated that they currently > intend to relicense, Yes, they stated this intention [1], but, after that, no further news came out, as far as I can tell. [1]

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

-list. Regards, Jim > On Feb 27, 2016, at 4:30 AM, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> > wrote: > > Paul Wise writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"): >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: >>> Are

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Paul Wise writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"): > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Are there any parts of Tor which currently have GPL-incompatible > > licences ? (Hopefully not.) > > Tor uses OpenSSL. Bah. W

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Are there any parts of Tor which currently have GPL-incompatible > licences ? (Hopefully not.) Tor uses OpenSSL. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Nick Mathewson writes ("Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"): > I'm a developer on the Tor Project. We're thinking of adding a new > cryptographic algorithm to Tor in order to improve our security > against possible advances in quantum computation. >

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

William Whyte writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"): > I think that entire FOSS Exception statement was imported from some other > project. I'll get our legal people to have a look at what that's meant to > mean and see if we can get clarification. P

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

25.02.2016, 15:30, "Walter Landry" : >  Tor would have to provide source with their binaries, which is >  something that they already do. The code that the Tor project writes >  could still be BSD licensed. So if someone wants to make a pure BSD >  version, all they would have

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Zhu-Zhu Chin wrote: > 25.02.2016, 06:31, "Walter Landry" : > >> Tor itself would not have to switch. Distributors would have to >> be careful when distributing binaries, which is something that Tor >> may or may not care about. > > Tor wouldn't have to

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

25.02.2016, 06:31, "Walter Landry" :  Tor itself would not have to switch. Distributors would have to be careful when distributing binaries, which is something that Tor may or may not care about.Tor wouldn't have to switch even though they provide binaries at torproject.org?  

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 06:53 +0900, William Whyte wrote: >> I'll get our legal people to have a look at what that's meant to mean >> and see if we can get clarification. > > Great, thanks. > > My first thought was that Tor couldn't link with other GPLed

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Zhu-Zhu Chin wrote: > I'm no legal expert but Tor is BSD-licensed, so if you incorporated > GPL'd code [1], all of Tor would have to switch to the GPL. Tor itself would not have to switch. Distributors would have to be careful when distributing binaries, which is something

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

>My first thought was that Tor couldn't link with other GPLed software too. Yeah, that's not the intent. I'll find out what the story is meant to be here. Cheers, William On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 06:53 +0900, William Whyte

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 06:53 +0900, William Whyte wrote: > I think that entire FOSS Exception statement was imported from some > other project. That often isn't the best idea for custom licenses. > I'll get our legal people to have a look at what that's meant to mean > and see if we can get

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

I think that entire FOSS Exception statement was imported from some other project. I'll get our legal people to have a look at what that's meant to mean and see if we can get clarification. Cheers, William On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24,

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

I'm no legal expert but Tor is BSD-licensed, so if you incorporated GPL'd code [1], all of Tor would have to switch to the GPL.If that is a problem, it might be a better idea to use the BSD-licensed implementation of NTRU [2] instead. It has the added benefit of being more efficient.[1] GPL

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Nick Mathewson wrote: > > https://github.com/NTRUOpenSourceProject/ntru-crypto/blob/master/FOSS%20Exception.md I wonder what this clause means: b. The Derivative Work does not include any work licensed under the GPL other than the GPLed NTRU; -- bye, pabs

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Nick Mathewson wrote: > Would there be any issues with including one or more of the NTRU > libraries in Debian, with the patent licenses in [4] below? It looks like if the license for Tor is compatible with the GPL, then you are fine. If the license for Tor is

Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Hello! I'm a developer on the Tor Project. We're thinking of adding a new cryptographic algorithm to Tor in order to improve our security against possible advances in quantum computation. Many Tor servers run on Debian, and we'd like to make sure that everything we do in Tor can be distributed