Haven't we made the mistake of relying on someone else's IP for crypto before? I'm looking at you, RSA and IDEA. I have no interest in a cryptosystem that's owned by someone and that requires me to release my own software under a particular license to use it. I don't care how technologically superior it might be.

The GPL doesn't require you to release a cryptosystem under the GPL, only code for that cryptosystem that derives from GPL'd code. The GPL in effect is a tragedy-of-the-commons-killomatic: It's an agreement between me and you saying "I give you my code, if you give it to others". There's nothing in there about "I offer you my code, and hit you if you try to write your own instead". Given that, I have very little time for GPL-haters, because they're just being whiny bastards. Write your own if you don't like it. Patents, on the other hand, are a whole different steaming pile of shit, and NTRU is patented. So, I'm still with you on this one. If they're somewhere where you can relinquish patents, they should do that. If not, they should either grant the patents wholly to a public trust, or put them under the DPL or similar and make an irrevocable pledge never to use them except defensively, if even that. Of course, who's to know if you implement or build on NTRU under a 'nym? It remains one of the only cryptosystems that's A) Practical and B) Quantum-resistant. Anyone know of any other quantum-resistant algos for *encryption* that can actually be used today, other than NTRU? On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:47:02 -0800 Sean Lynch wrote:

On Wed, Nov 27 2013, coderman wrote:

...

https://github.com/NTRUOpenSourceProject/ntru-crypto

...

""" Security Innovation, Inc., the owner of the NTRU public key cryptography system, made the intellectual property and a sample implementation available under the Gnu Public License (GPL) in 2013 with the goal of enabling more widespread adoption of this superior cryptographic technology. The system is also available for commercial use under the terms of the Security Innovation Commercial License.

Haven't we made the mistake of relying on someone else's IP for crypto before? I'm looking at you, RSA and IDEA. I have no interest in a cryptosystem that's owned by someone and that requires me to release my own software under a particular license to use it. I don't care how technologically superior it might be.

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 00:10 +0000, Cathal Garvey wrote:

Anyone know of any other quantum-resistant algos for *encryption* that can actually be used today, other than NTRU?

There is McBits which is supposed to be blazingly fast, but the keys are very large which makes it unsuitable for everything except fixed-key systems like PGP. --ll