similar to: OpenSSH 2.1.0 does not compile without RSA support

I hate following up to myself, but I thought a clarification of one point (specifically WRT RC5 which was mentioned in the original question) might be worthwhile...because what I should have said originally was that "To the best of my non-legally- admissible knowledge, however, none of the algorithms in the current *OpenSSH* implementation are currently encumbered by patents that would

Hello... to openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org cc djm at ibs.com.au devel platform: linux intel redhat 6.2beta http://violet.ibs.com.au/openssh/files/openssh-1.2.2.tar.gz from rpm at same. I am NOT subscribed to the openssh-unix-dev list. I ran into a problem using openssh-1.2.2 with openssl-0.9.5. With openssl 0.9.5 you can now compile shared libraries without idea, rc5 and rsa. openssl

Sunil-- Actually, you do not "see that openssl has some patent issues." You do see that OpenSSL implements many algorithms, some of which have been (at various times) been patented or encumbered in some countries. Without knowing what country you're in, none of us here can really give useful advice as to which software/algorithm patents could potentially apply. To the best of my

Hello, Due to patent concerns, I compiled a version of openssl with the no-rsa, no-idea, no-rc5 options. I was able to then take this compile of openssl, with the standard openssh-2.1.0 rpms and run it on another machine. Most things seemed to work fine, except I was unable to ssh into the machine. After applying the following patch to the sshd code, a quick test with an ssh session worked:

OpenSSH Developers, I'm researching whether or not OpenSSH is a viable commercial alternative to F-SECURE SSH or SSH.COM's ssh, but I'm not getting the kind of results that I expected from a "Non patent encumbered ssh client". When I attempt to build OpenSSH against an OpenSSL build without rc5, idea, or rsa it bombs since OpenSSL doesn't place the header files in the

[The is an announcement to the developers list only, please give the new version a try overnight and I will announce it to the wider community tomorrow.] This is to announce the release of openssh-2.1.0, the first stable release of portable OpenSSH to incorporate support for the SSH2 protocol. The SSH2 protocol offers a number of advantages over the SSH1 protocol including standards compliance

The specific standards process used to develop the MPEG codecs creates patent minefields that royalty-free codecs don't generally face. Because many knowledgeable people have heard of the problems faced by these patent-soup standards, they may extrapolate these risk to codecs developed under a different process where these problems are less considerable. This is a mistake, and I'll explain

The list probably did not get this reply from D Richard Felker III. Having read quite a few patents I tend to agree with Richard: Software patents are very broad and even if I have not read the source code of Theora I would be surprised if it did not infringe several patents. However, I believe the argument that On2 has not been sued for infringing the MPEG-patents is a very strong argument.

Craig Dickson (crdic@yahoo.com) wrote : > Jack Moffitt wrote: > > > I agree that this might be the case. But what happens with the > > violation is by the author? :) > > > > Ie, in the case of PlusV releasing a patented codec under the GPL or in > > the case of LAME or FreeType's authors doing similar things. What > > state is that? > >

> Take a look at: > > http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/voip/index.en.html Well, outside of the Speex link, that page seems to be pretty old... > Is speex realy petant free or does patent free only means that > is is not patent by the speex authors? Who have checked that > speex doesn't violates patents others? I don't use IP here, > because most patents are

Does the reason Theora is relatively safe from patent infringement lawsuit have more to do with it actually not being encumbered, or is it because its use is decentralized? For example, FreeType is not patent-free, nor is Linux, yet they succeed because on the one hand, they are open source, and those who maintain them do not guarantee anything regarding patents, it is up to each individual user

I am taking the liberty of forwarding this message to the list. I am not subscribed to it. If you want to reply to me, please send email to faheem at email.unc.edu Thanks, Faheem Mitha. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Faheem Mitha <faheem at email.unc.edu> Newsgroups: comp.security.ssh Subject: installing OpenSSH rpm on SuSE 6.2 Dear people, I tried

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Wayde Milas wrote: > The whole point is, I'm pretty sure that the above patents would never > stand up. There is a multitude of works both in use today, and in > written papers/code using arithmetic encoding. Not only that, I dont > think any prior art search was done from 1976 to 1990 when the patents > were awarded. There is alot of prior art. This is

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Mai, Haohui <haohui.mai at gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/9/09 3:28 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Lei Shang<shang1982 at gmail.com>  wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>>     I just found -steens-aa and -ds-aa Alias Analysis listed in documents do >>> not exist in my llvm-2.3 code. Both from

Hello Jean-Marc Valin and all the Speex-dev team, Today I have a little question about patents and the AEC. I' am not a lawyer, but after a deep research in esp@cenet.com, I found that in August 2003, an AEC called "Double talk insensitive NLMS algorithm" (DNLMS) have been patented by Gary Q Jin, Gordon J Reesor, and others (US 6.608.897 B1). It uses a continuous adaptation step

OK, I've hacked configure so that it simply checks that it can link with openssl. Now, when I run make, it dies on authfile.c while trying to include the non-existent headers openssl/rc5.h and openssl/idea.h. I built my installation of openssl without those algorithms in order to avoid commercial licensing issues. The following diff band-aids the problem, but I think it's down-stream of

"Q. Isn't VP3 a patented technology? Yes, some portions of the VP3 codec are covered by patents. However, the Xiph.org Foundation has negotiated an irrevocable free license to the VP3 codec for any purpose imaginable on behalf of the public. It is legal to use VP3 in any way you see fit (unless, of course, you're doing something illegal with it in your particular jurisdiction). You

Hello, So here is the compression scheme that I don't know if is covered by patent. I use it on the wavelet DC parts.It outputs 1 byte (8 bits) words.There is 5 modes: - 1(MSB) | 7 bits to store value (0->127 range) - 01 | 6 bits to store val[n+1]-val[n] | val[n]-val[n-1] if each in the range [-4,4] - 001 | 5 bits to store val[n+2]-val[n+1] | val[n+1]-val[n] | val[n]-val[n-1] if each in

>Simply stated, SRP is a strong password authentication protocol that >resists passive/active network attack, and when used in conjunction with >OpenSSH, solves the "unknown host key" problem without requiring host >key fingerprint verification or PKI deployment (e.g. X.509 certs). Put >another way, is there any good reason *not* to fold these patches into >OpenSSH

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Dominic Hamon <dom.hamon at gmail.com> wrote: > It has also been mentioned that it is also true for LLVM itself, and it > is. However, the amount of code in LLVM, and the specific nature of its > usage and what it is for lends itself to better contribution tracking > immediately. Boost is a nebulous piece of software with a wide range of >