ntru-crypto - Open Source NTRU Public Key Cryptography Algorithm and Reference Code

[Cathal Garvey]

> 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 <seanl at literati.org> 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.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20131203/28fd7d3a/attachment-0001.sig>