> On 9 Feb 2016, at 02:56, Zhenfei Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Also in the discussion we were talking about the possibility of using > non-product form > polynomial version of NTRUEncrypt, as this version will become patent free by > Aug 2017, > while the patent for product form will last for another 4 years. The main > concern is that > Debian will not allow patented software in the package. However, through our > discussion, > it turns out that we may be able to include this proposal in the next one of > two release of > Tor. From this point of view, both patent (basic NTRU patent, till 2017 and > product form > patent, till 2021) are going to be an issue if Debian does not agree with > SI's patent statement. > So does it make sense to keep the product form polynomials as they enables > roughly 3 > times faster operations on both client side and server side?
I think our priority must be consistency across platforms, rather than performance. (Personally, I really wish NTRU wasn't patented, regardless of the open-source patent grant, then we wouldn't have to be concerned about this.) As discussed in the meeting last week: * we have to standardise on one algorithm, * many tor relays are on debian, * if debian-legal declines the patent grant for either form, tor won't be able to use that form of NTRU on debian, * and if that is so, tor will have to choose a different form or algorithm. So it's really up to debian-legal, who I assume we've asked or will be asking. Tim Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP 968F094B teor at blah dot im OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
