🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan11.172918.1521@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
   In article <CKD.93Jan10211803@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher
   Davis) writes:
   >that export of RIPEM would be legal, which would make it possible for those
   >both inside and outside the US and Canada to use it, and make it a
   >practical cross-border public-key encryption system.

   RSA's attorneys say not, at least with respect to RSAREF, which right now
   is an essential part of RIPEM. Let's leave it there instead of continuing
   to repeat ourselves.

More precisely, RIPEM depends on having subroutines with the RSAREF interface 
which implement RSAREF functionality - RIPEM itself could be exported,
and some of those sinister foreigners could reimplement RSAREF,
as long as they stick to the interfaces, and then we could probably use RIPEM
for cross-border mail (assuming key-certification issues can be resolved),
without having to export RSAREF itself (which violates the RSAREF licenses,
as well as inviting problems from the ITAR-vogons.)

Has anybody read the RSAREF license carefully enough to determine
whether the interface definitions can be distributed without license?
(Doing so for the purpose of re-implementing RSAREF may disturb some people,
but doing so for the purpose of building code that USES RSAREF would
seem to be very much in the spirit of technology dissemination that
the patent process is supposed to encourage.)  
If it's ok to distribute the interface, one could also contend that an
interface definition isn't software, it's just documentation.
--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
Bush's pardon of his co-conspirators shows that he is, in the end, still a wimp.