Re: SRP in OpenSSH draft protocol spec

[RJ Atkinson <rja%inet.org@localhost>]

At 20:44 02/04/01, Tom Wu wrote:
>RJ Atkinson wrote:
>> 
>> to grant.  In the IETF context, there ought not be a
>> requirement for folks to individually and separately contact
>> the patent holder to obtain a licence -- instead some form
>> of general licence should be granted, IMHO.
>
>Just so that others reading this don't get the wrong impression, the
>free license for SRP is granted to all, *without* requiring a written
>agreement with Stanford.  While people are welcome to contact Stanford
>OTL to have their questions answered, they do *not* need to negotiate
>with them in order to use SRP on a royalty-free basis.
>
>In the interest of saving time in the future, I will have Stanford OTL send the IETF secretariat an additional statement to this effect.

        Thanks, that would help a lot.  In particular, having
Stanford give the IETF Secretariat a specific licence statement
with clear inclusions/limitations/exclusions would help a great deal.
Publishing an RFC would not be substantially more work and
would be even better, as existing practice shows. :-)

Ran