Re: Irony of RSA Encryption
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 02:14:01PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> The assumption I would like to revisit is that software patents or
> copyright laws lead to closed software.
If you consider that an assumption, you'd better start by defining what
you mean by "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
Sure -- in the case of U.S. patents, they're only good for 20 years
after they're issued. [But remember that they also cover the period
between the time they're filed and the time they're issued, and this
period can cover a number of years.]
Copyrights last significantly longer. Typically, we'll all be dead (of
old age) long before they expire.
> 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.
I hope you don't mind if I wait till long after you die before I agree