3 ms·

Rogaway's patent grants are now very liberal: they cover all open source and everything non-military. It passed through CFRG, too, and is documented in an RFC:

Rogaway's patent grants are now very liberal: they cover all open source and everything non-military. It passed through CFRG, too, and is documented in an RFC: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7253 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7253 But yes, definitely the fact that there were patent grants hurt it a lot in adoption before; even when (as in WiFi) it was one of the contenders, CCM is more common. A few things do use it: off the top of my head, I think Mumble does, although I think that's an earlier variant (OCB2, perhaps, rather than OCB3 as documented in the RFC?). I'm also looking forward to the results of the CAESAR authenticated-encryption competition - http://competitions.cr.yp.to/caesar.html http://competitions.cr.yp.to/caesar.html - there's a lot of competition, and quite a few entries fell and have been withdrawn. The current version of OCB is among the current list of contenders, among several other interesting candidates.

tedunangst 12y ago
Specifically regarding the patent grants (of which there are three on http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm: open source, non-military, and OpenSSL) they would appear at first glance to cover OpenBSD. All three in fact. The problem is that this then creates a trap for anyone taking OpenBSD and using it to build something to sell to a military. Suddenly they are no longer protected; we prefer not to incorporate anything that can create such traps. For an example, this came up in the thread where OCB was proposed to be added to OpenSSL. You think you're free and clear, and then you're not. http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=136016226304441&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=136016226304441&w=2 Then came the OpenSSL specific license. That license probably applies to LibreSSL today, but now there's a Ship of Theseus problem. How much OpenSSL does one need to keep to qualify? And of course, the OpenBSD IPsec stack is completely unrelated to OpenSSL.
- e12e 12y ago
  > Specifically regarding the patent grants (of which there are three on http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm: open source, non-military, and OpenSSL) they would appear at first glance to cover OpenBSD. All three in fact. The problem is that this then creates a trap for anyone taking OpenBSD and using it to build something to sell to a military. Suddenly they are no longer protected; we prefer not to incorporate anything that can create such traps. How so? As far as I can tell, the "open source" grant, covers everything under a BSD license (among other licenses) -- and holds no provision for "military use". I don't see how anyone using the [ed: algorithm, not code] under license 1, could become subject to license 3?
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    People take OpenBSD and turn it into not open source products all the time. For a more famous example, FreeBSD is at the core of the Playstation OS, but it's no longer open source.

tedunangst 12y ago

Specifically regarding the patent grants (of which there are three on http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm: open source, non-military, and OpenSSL) they would appear at first glance to cover OpenBSD. All three in fact. The problem is that this then creates a trap for anyone taking OpenBSD and using it to build something to sell to a military. Suddenly they are no longer protected; we prefer not to incorporate anything that can create such traps. For an example, this came up in the thread where OCB was proposed to be added to OpenSSL. You think you're free and clear, and then you're not. http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=136016226304441&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=136016226304441&w=2 Then came the OpenSSL specific license. That license probably applies to LibreSSL today, but now there's a Ship of Theseus problem. How much OpenSSL does one need to keep to qualify? And of course, the OpenBSD IPsec stack is completely unrelated to OpenSSL.

e12e 12y ago
> Specifically regarding the patent grants (of which there are three on http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm: open source, non-military, and OpenSSL) they would appear at first glance to cover OpenBSD. All three in fact. The problem is that this then creates a trap for anyone taking OpenBSD and using it to build something to sell to a military. Suddenly they are no longer protected; we prefer not to incorporate anything that can create such traps. How so? As far as I can tell, the "open source" grant, covers everything under a BSD license (among other licenses) -- and holds no provision for "military use". I don't see how anyone using the [ed: algorithm, not code] under license 1, could become subject to license 3?
- tedunangst 12y ago
  People take OpenBSD and turn it into not open source products all the time. For a more famous example, FreeBSD is at the core of the Playstation OS, but it's no longer open source.