Greg Ewing schrieb:
That can't be right, because it would mean that
anyone who runs a program that contains a
patented algorithm, even one bought or otherwise
obtained from someone else, would need to
individually negotiate a licence with the
patent owner. That clearly doesn't happen.
No,
Greg Ewing schrieb:
In the context of an encryption algorithm, the right to
use would be the most prominent one; you wouldn't be
allowed to use the algorithm unless you have a patent
license.
But what does use *mean* in relation to an
algorithm?
Perform it: do the steps that the algorithm
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Perform it: do the steps that the algorithm says you should
do, or let a machine do it. IOW, run the code.
That can't be right, because it would mean that
anyone who runs a program that contains a
patented algorithm, even one bought or otherwise
obtained from someone
Greg Ewing schrieb:
If distributing the source doesn't violate the patent,
and distributing a binary doesn't violate the patent,
then what *would* constitute a violation of a software
patent?
IANAL, but AFAICT, the rights controlled by patent law
are the right to make, to use, to sell, to
Gregory P. Smith schrieb:
disabling/enabling a cipher in openssl that isn't commonly used and
isn't even directly exposed via any API to a python user hardly sounds
like dropping a feature to me.
Strictly speaking, it is dropping a feature: a connection that can get
established with 2.5b3
Strictly speaking, it is dropping a feature: a connection that can get
established with 2.5b3 might not get established with 2.5c1, assuming
a server that requires some IDEA-based cipher.
(any sane SSL connection will negotiate AES or 3DES
as its cipher; IDEA isn't required)
Ok, I'll
On 8/8/06, Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If distributing the source doesn't violate the patent,
and distributing a binary doesn't violate the patent,
then what *would* constitute a violation of a software
patent?
Writing new code using the algorithm? Compiling
something which uses
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In the context of an encryption algorithm, the right to
use would be the most prominent one; you wouldn't be
allowed to use the algorithm unless you have a patent
license.
But what does use *mean* in relation to an
algorithm?
--
Greg
Jim Jewett schrieb:
The OpenSSL library implements some algorithms that are patented. The
source code should be fine to (re)distribute, but but there may be a
slight legal risk with distributing a binary.
I don't want to change the build process in that way (i.e. dropping a
feature) just
On 8/8/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Jewett schrieb:
The OpenSSL library implements some algorithms that are patented. The
source code should be fine to (re)distribute, but but there may be a
slight legal risk with distributing a binary.
I don't want to change the
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 04:54:44PM -0400, Jim Jewett wrote:
On 8/8/06, Martin v. L?wis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Jewett schrieb:
The OpenSSL library implements some algorithms that are patented. The
source code should be fine to (re)distribute, but but there may be a
slight legal
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I personally don't think there is a risk
distributing the code (if there was, distribution of OpenSSL would also
be a risk); anybody /using/ a patented algorithm would violate the
patent.
If distributing the source doesn't violate the patent,
and distributing a binary
12 matches
Mail list logo
