Dave Neuer wrote:
> RSADSI seem to have a propensity for casting information in a decidedly
> pro-RSADSI light. Kind of like the way they convinced the IETF that the
> licensing for RSA would always be "affordable and non-discriminatory."
Interestingly one of the RFCs says that the licence fee is fixed at 2%
of the selling price (I will dig out the exact RFC number if anyone is
interested). That could equate to a good deal for producers of free
software.
Of course the question arises as to what extent RSA are bound by that
statement. I can only write from an English viewpoint, but here there
is a concept called, confusingly, `estoppel'. The idea is that if
someone makes a promise that would not ordinarily be binding, but you
rely on it to your detriment, they are not subsequently allowed to
retract. (Of course this is an oversimplification.) The English and
American legal systems are quite similar in a lot of ways, so does
anyone have any idea how it would be seen on the other side of the pond?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
phone +44 (0) 208 542 7856, fax +44 (0) 208 543 0176, post:
Skygate Technology Ltd, 8 Lombard Road, Wimbledon, London, SW19 3TZ
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
