Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:26:15 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu (Jonathan Rochkind) Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Precedence: bulk Now, copyright might be another matter. But you can't copyright an algorithm, only specific text in fixed form (ie, the source code). So this would mean you couldn't use the particular code posted to sci.crypt, but wouldn't stop anyone from using the algorithm, if they wrote their own code (to be safe, without having seen the RSA-copyrighted code, only having the algorithm described to them by someone else). If the source code posted to sci.crypt was in fact a copy of an RSADSI copyrighted soure code listing, then making copies of that listing is a copyright violation. However, copyright protection does not extend to the underlying algorithm, so unless RSADSI has a patent on the algorithm the idea is free, and can be reimplemented using a "clean room" or "Chinese wall" approach. If the posted source code was *not* a copy of RSADSI source code but instead produced by disassembling object code RSADSI's claims are tenuous at best. RSADSI could conceivably claim that the disassembled code is a derivative product of their copyrighted object code, but I think they would have a hard time distinguishing themselves from the facts in _Sega v. Accolade_. I fail to see how the legality of "alleged-RC2" is any different than that of the "alleged-RC4" code which was published last year. --bal