Re: Irony of RSA Encryption

[Paul Serice <serice@bigfoot.com>]

David Starner wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 12:12:56PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > Has anyone else noticed the irony that RSA now has fewer restrictions
> > than any software covered by the GPL?
> 
> Sigh. Do we have to start a gratitious flame war?
>
> . . .
>
> Honestly, you're comparing apples and oranges. Any non-patented software
> is just as free as RSA . . .


You're right that the argument about public domain vs. GPL
doesn't need to be rehashed, and that's not what the posting was meant
to do.

The assumption I would like to revisit is that software patents or
copyright laws lead to closed software.

Perhaps this too is a well-discussed, but RSA going into the public
domain (early or not) is a significant and rare event.  It provides an
excellent example and context for revisiting some basic assumptions.

I'm merely making an observation (as the event passes before us in
time) that the current laws can *** in most instances *** lead to open
code.

Maybe something like the GPL only needs to be used for those few
instances where people or corporations find ways to avoid the spirit
of the patent and copyright systems.

My point is that the presumptions that lead to the GPL are generally
flawed, and RSA is possibly a case in point.

There is no need to defend your world.  I understand that people
disagree, and I'm not saying I'm right in any absolute sense.  We
don't need a flame war because I respect the other side of the
argument.  I just happen to disagree, and now I have a case in point.


Thanks
Paul Serice