🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <WCS.93Jan12005718@rainier.ATT.COM>, wcs@anchor (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
>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.)

Here in Finland, I stumbled on something which looks very much like
RIPEM+RSAREF.  I haven't looked at the package more closely or
untarred it, because of all the FUD about the issue,

(by the way, I have seen posted that the author of RIPEM requests that
RIPEM not be distributed outside USA - unless he changes his mind I
think it might be a good idea to be polite and comply with the
request)

>Has anybody read the RSAREF license carefully enough to determine
>whether the interface definitions can be distributed without license?

but I guess that if the package indeed contains RSAREF it might be
possible for me to examine the package and describe the interface on
this newsgroups - I certainly do not intend to sign or comply to a
license as described here so I don't think the license would be a
problem.

Also, depending on what the copyright status of the RSAREF code is, it
might be perfectly OK for people outside USA to distribute and use the
RSAREF code itself.  Could someone clarify the copyright issue wrt
RSAREF?  The license seems to require commitment not to distribute
RSAREF, but I guess that's irrelevant for people who have not signed
the license.  I don't know whether publishing something by ftp implies
permission to further distribute (republish) the package, but if not
and there's no notice saying permission for distribution is given then
it probably wouldn't be OK to put RSAREF for ftp here.

>If it's ok to distribute the interface, one could also contend that an
>interface definition isn't software, it's just documentation.

I can't think of any reason for me to not be able to publish
information about the interface.  The Finnish copyright law doesn't
cover interfaces.  Also, as I haven't signed any license I don't see
what would prevent me from examining RSAREF.  Any other thoughts?

//Jyrki