Re: [Cfrg] RG Last Call - draft-irtf-cfrg-ocb-00

Simon Josefsson <> Mon, 11 February 2013 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A64221F8681 for <>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:18:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.11
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZbj+g5uwGM0 for <>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1172A21F867B for <>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id r1BBIIGO018216 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:18:19 +0100
From: Simon Josefsson <>
To: Ted Krovetz <>
References: <> <>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:18:13 +0100
In-Reply-To: <> (Ted Krovetz's message of "Wed, 6 Feb 2013 08:51:59 -0800")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3 at yxa-v
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] RG Last Call - draft-irtf-cfrg-ocb-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:18:29 -0000

Ted Krovetz <> writes:

>> practically unusable in any serious product (commercial or
> otherwise) because of its licensing terms.
> I certainly hope that we can convince you that this is not true.

The simplest way to do that is to change the license.

As far as I understand, the current license fails to meet the open
source definition used by OSI, in particular the "No Discrimination
Against Fields of Endeavor" paragraph:

Thus, and also as far as I understand, I could not implement OCB in some
of my free software packages, and have that be accepted by organisations
that require OSI-compatible licensing.

To me, anything that restrict significant implementers ability to use a
specification is a serious problem, to the point that it may be better
to find and use another specification.

Thefore I don't find it a good use of everyone's collective time to
publish specifications that aren't useful to as many as possible,
especially if there are alternatives.