...@yandex.com
Apparently from: owner-tech+m42...@openbsd.org
To: tech@openbsd.org
Subject: OpenBSD/NTRU policy mismatch [Was: NTRU Open Source Project /
Post-quantum era]
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 20:50:29 +0200
On 25/05/15 02:50:50 PM, Douglas Ray wrote:
2. The FOSS exception clause above won't help
26.05.2015, 23:08, Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net:
FWIW, a BSD-licensed NTRU implementation exists at
https://github.com/tbuktu/libntru and while it is patent encumbered, it
offers a compile switch that causes it to become patent free in 2017 as
opposed to the GPL implementation which
On 25/05/15 02:50:50 PM, Douglas Ray wrote:
2. The FOSS exception clause above won't help with existing
OpenBSD policy, insofar as I understand it here:
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
[note section towards end on GPL under Specific Cases]
FWIW, a BSD-licensed NTRU implementation
Thanks William and Ertetlen for clarifying:
On 25/05/15 10:09 PM, William Whyte wrote:
Hi Ertetlen,
The base license for NTRU is GPL v2 or higher. However, there's a
license to distribute NTRU under GPL alongside open source projects that
exist under other licenses: see details at
No clarification needed: NTRU is patented, with no free for all patent
grant. It is a complete non-starter for OpenBSD or OpenSSH.
Damien is right.
It is patented, meaning they want money. They are willing to allow
GPL projects to play along, because this creates a base to extract
money from
No clarification needed: NTRU is patented, with no free for all patent
grant. It is a complete non-starter for OpenBSD or OpenSSH.
On Tue, 26 May 2015, Douglas Ray wrote:
Thanks William and Ertetlen for clarifying:
On 25/05/15 10:09 PM, William Whyte wrote:
Hi Ertetlen,
The base
