7 ms·

As someone who has a highly ambivalent attitude toward the military for very real, legitimate reasons I'd love it if you could elaborate. I myself live that wa

As someone who has a highly ambivalent attitude toward the military for very real, legitimate reasons I'd love it if you could elaborate. I myself live that way now, as in; I don't work for the military, anyone who subcontracts to the military or the homeland security, etc. And it is precisely for reasons that would push one to include a no-military-use patent on OCB. fwiw I'm not intimately familiar with the figures involved, I know who they are, read some of bernsteins code/math/writing, and no vaguely who Rogaway is (but haven't yet had a chance to read the "moral character" essay).

pmahoney 11y ago
Just a guess, but maybe wtbob is getting at the fact that odd licenses are generally GPL-incompatible or otherwise awkward or ambiguous. See for example, the JSLint license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSLint#License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSLint#License
- dtornabene 11y ago
  thanks for replying.
joshyeager 11y ago
One big reason is that with this restriction his algorithms almost certainly won't be included in any of the common security standards (FIPS 140 and NIST 800-53 are the primary ones in the US), which means that anyone who needs to follow those standards won't be able to use it.
- dtornabene 11y ago
  ah, yes. that should have been obvious I suppose. thanks.
- maaku 11y ago
  That was the point though, no?
  - hueving 11y ago
    No, those standards dictate how many organizations beyond the military adopt security protocols.
    - maaku 11y ago
      That's a side effect. The intended purpose of those standards are government procurement.
antod 11y ago
It is basically incompatible with both Open Source and Free Software definitions. ie: "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition and "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
- schoen 11y ago
  However, Rogaway also issued a separate patent license for free and open source use (which does not exclude military uses). http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license1.pdf http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license1.pdf So while it's true that free and open source software would not be able to impose a no-military-use restriction, Rogaway in this case is exempting free and open source projects from that restriction.
  - yarrel 11y ago
    Free and open source software don't allow that sort of restriction. So while Rogaway's intentions are honorable, the results aren't coherent.
    - kerkeslager 11y ago
      I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is a choice of one of a few licenses for the software rather than a dual license. The licenses aren't coherent if you apply the licenses simultaneously, but I think only one of the licenses need apply to the software for a given user. So you can release free and open source software which might be used for military purposes, OR you can release closed sourced software, but it can't be used for military purposes. The effect is that if your software will be used for military purposes you have to release it as free and open source software. In this case it's not a dual license where you're bound by the terms of both licenses, it's a situation where you choose one of the licenses based on which set of terms you can comply with. Multi-option licenses like this are frequently used for proprietary software to enforce tiered pricing (such as nonprofit/personal/corporate licenses all applying to the same software but different licensees). This is my interpretation, but I'm not a lawyer. I wouldn't stake my business on my interpretation without consulting a lawyer and neither should you.
maaku 11y ago
Did you read the OP? It is addressed there.

pmahoney 11y ago

Just a guess, but maybe wtbob is getting at the fact that odd licenses are generally GPL-incompatible or otherwise awkward or ambiguous. See for example, the JSLint license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSLint#License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSLint#License

dtornabene 11y ago
thanks for replying.

joshyeager 11y ago

One big reason is that with this restriction his algorithms almost certainly won't be included in any of the common security standards (FIPS 140 and NIST 800-53 are the primary ones in the US), which means that anyone who needs to follow those standards won't be able to use it.

dtornabene 11y ago
ah, yes. that should have been obvious I suppose. thanks.
maaku 11y ago
That was the point though, no?
- hueving 11y ago
  No, those standards dictate how many organizations beyond the military adopt security protocols.
  - maaku 11y ago
    That's a side effect. The intended purpose of those standards are government procurement.

antod 11y ago

It is basically incompatible with both Open Source and Free Software definitions. ie: "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition and "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

schoen 11y ago
However, Rogaway also issued a separate patent license for free and open source use (which does not exclude military uses). http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license1.pdf http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license1.pdf So while it's true that free and open source software would not be able to impose a no-military-use restriction, Rogaway in this case is exempting free and open source projects from that restriction.
- yarrel 11y ago
  Free and open source software don't allow that sort of restriction. So while Rogaway's intentions are honorable, the results aren't coherent.
  - kerkeslager 11y ago
    I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is a choice of one of a few licenses for the software rather than a dual license. The licenses aren't coherent if you apply the licenses simultaneously, but I think only one of the licenses need apply to the software for a given user. So you can release free and open source software which might be used for military purposes, OR you can release closed sourced software, but it can't be used for military purposes. The effect is that if your software will be used for military purposes you have to release it as free and open source software. In this case it's not a dual license where you're bound by the terms of both licenses, it's a situation where you choose one of the licenses based on which set of terms you can comply with. Multi-option licenses like this are frequently used for proprietary software to enforce tiered pricing (such as nonprofit/personal/corporate licenses all applying to the same software but different licensees). This is my interpretation, but I'm not a lawyer. I wouldn't stake my business on my interpretation without consulting a lawyer and neither should you.

maaku 11y ago

Did you read the OP? It is addressed there.