-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
So, does anyone know for certain if this is the true letter of the law? Since RC4 has been reverse engineered (or leaked) to the public, do they have any claim on it if there is no patent? Seeing the legal web that surrounds a lot of the current crypto situation in the US, it's not surprising that RSA would try to smoke screen everyone into thinking that there would be a clear violation (prosecutable by law) if anyone used RC4 without getting a license. (It's also not surprising that no one's tried as well...)
A acquaintance of mine at a now-defunct company compared the reverse engineered RC4 work-alike that was released on the net with the source they had licensed from RSADSI. She noted that the implementations were quite different (structure and variable names were both very different), so the work-alike released on the net was indeed most likely reverse engineered. Someone else queried two or three other BSAFE source licensees, and found all agreed that the code was not cribbed from BSAFE sources. Sadly, I no longer have copies of the (anonymous) post. Still, I'm not rich enough to punch through RSADSI's smoke screen... Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMBky1fobez3wRbTBAQHh2AP/dPCZxvp8W2CXG/mqN7iuYc1oH+t0XiH8 wAnNQ2+0BbWzVyzt3YalUp6/JPXDBm1kGVWxmy+UUY8y0dfYpsi78T4aQxoPpG13 Kfc7MQat77SGvhRzNAcMei0h+hyMUmwGqnaetuSGIbFcyPbcnn4F8nq8JBOHXHcF 03+m959OKVk= =wTxS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----