Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

[Walter Landry <wlandry@caltech.edu>]

Zhu-Zhu Chin <zchin777@yandex.com> wrote:
> 25.02.2016, 06:31, "Walter Landry" <wlandry@caltech.edu>:
> 
>> Tor itself would not have to switch. Distributors would have to
>> be careful when distributing binaries, which is something that Tor
>> may or may not care about.
> 
> Tor wouldn't have to switch even though they provide binaries at
> torproject.org?

Tor would have to provide source with their binaries, which is
something that they already do.  The code that the Tor project writes
could still be BSD licensed.  So if someone wants to make a pure BSD
version, all they would have to do is take out the NTRU parts.

>     > If that is a problem, it might be a better idea to use the
>     > BSD-licensed implementation of NTRU [2] instead. It has the added
>     > benefit of being more efficient.
> 
>     If it is faster, you could fold it into the official
>     GPL-licensed version and enjoy performance and patent
>     protection.
> 
> Are you saying other implementations than the official one are not
> patent protected, or is it non-GPL'd implementations?

As I understand it, the GPL'd NTRU implementation is distributed by
the patent holders.  The GPL implicitly grants a patent license.  The
BSD licensed version does not have this patent license.

Cheers,
Walter Landry