RE: [TLS] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tls-srp-13.txt

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Blumenthal, Uri wrote:

> I've heard that other parties claim that their patents cover SRP
> method as well. Stanford license agreement pretty much says "yeah
> those claims may be true - and if so it's your problem". (Caveat:
> I'm not a lawyer - the above is how I understand the written text.
> Feel free to correct me and provide the right interpretation.)

AFAIK it's standard boilerplate.

> I understand that since Stanford doesn't charge for the license,
> one can't demand or expect much from them, but you must understand
> those who find such a license less than reassuring.
>
> In short - I'd like to see some evidence that political/legal/IPR
> problems indeed have been solved (which is harder than writing an
> implementation :-).

Under the current circumstances, the growing base of running code
for TLS/SRP and the rough consensus among its implementors is
the best evidence one could reasonably expect.  If SRP weren't
truly free, it would be in the same boat as the other ZKP protocols
and would not have attracted the interest level it has, especially
with OSS projects.

> Regards,
> Uri
> <Disclaimer> I speak for myself only

Tom
-- 
Tom Wu
http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~tjw/

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls