httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Donovan <>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Thoughts on Camillia in openssl binaries?]]
Date Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:20:52 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Feedback from Ben via legal-discuss, since his httpd-dev list seems
> to have fallen over and can't get up.
> Bill
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject:
> Re: [Fwd: Re: Thoughts on Camillia in openssl binaries?]
> From:
> Ben Laurie <>
> Date:
> Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:28:57 +0100
> To:
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
> To:
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
> CC:
> ASF Legal Discuss <>
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> A thread from dev@httpd, we are considering adding a newer algorithm
>> to a binary 0.9.8 build of openssl.  Introduces a patent question, with
>> what is almost but not quite a complete grant of license.  Looking for
>> any feedback if this would concern us, since Tom raises the point that
>> it gets interesting with Firefox 3 possibly using this algorithm.
> I should point out that just because some loon contributes an algorithm
> to OpenSSL doesn't mean you need to implement it.
> If there's any encumbrance, then I see even less reason to implement
> (less than "none", that is).

The Japanese export restrictions apply to all algorithms (including the 
current ones), not just Camellia.  Camellia itself imposes no additional 

Camellia is in RFC4132, and is recommended by the by the
EU NESSIE and the Japanese CRYPTREC organizations - but not by any U.S. 
organizations (...that I know of...)

Perhaps Ben meant "some loons" (plural).  Unfortunately, there is no 
word for groups of loons, as with "gaggle of geese" etc.


View raw message