RE: inclusion of the IDEA algorithm

Marco,

I believe that Bob Colestock has answered your questions regarding the SFL
and Enhanced SNACC public licenses.  The complete ENHANCED SNACC SOFTWARE
PUBLIC LICENSE is available from
<http://www.getronicsgov.com/hot/snacc_license.txt>.  I believe that the
following excerpt from the ENHANCED SNACC SOFTWARE PUBLIC LICENSE answers
your question:

"Original SNACC Software:

The SNACC software is composed of the SNACC Compiler and the SNACC
Library.  Michael Sample and the University of British Columbia 
developed the original SNACC Compiler and Library.  According to 
Michael Sample, the original SNACC Compiler is covered by the 
attached GNU General Public License (GPL), Version 2, June 1991.
According to Michael Sample, the original SNACC Library 
software is completely unencumbered.  None of the GNU public 
licenses apply to the original SNACC Library software.  Each 
SNACC Library source code file includes the following text:

"// Copyright (C) 1992 Michael Sample and the University of British Columbia
//
// This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
// modify it provided that this copyright/license information is retained
// in original form.
//
// If you modify this file, you must clearly indicate your changes.
//
// This source code is distributed in the hope that it will be
// useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty
// of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
"

Please us know if you require further info.

===========================================
John Pawling, [email protected]
Getronics Government Solutions, LLC
===========================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Colestock, Robert 
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 2:14 PM
To: 'Marco Scarsi'
Cc: Pawling, John
Subject: RE: inclusion of the IDEA algorithm


Marco:

Mike Sample was the original author, his license is wide open for general
use.

Bob Colestock,
VDA.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Scarsi [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:01 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: inclusion of the IDEA algorithm


Hi Bob,

thanks for your answer. About the licence problem:
I was only concerned by the enhanced SNACC library licence. The reason of my

concern lies in the licence statement that Getronics publishes on the 
homepage (http://www.getronicsgov.com/hot/snacc_license.txt). The words 
"...according to Michael Sample..." made me doubt whether the enhanced SNACC

library is really completely unencumbered or only according to Michael 
Sample.

Marco Scarsi


>From: "Colestock, Robert" <[email protected]>
>To: 'Marco Scarsi' <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>Subject: RE: inclusion of the IDEA algorithm
>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:55:39 -0400
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from [206.137.100.2] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id 
>MHotMailBCEF6A49005F400438DFCE896402805C0; Tue Jun 12 06:55:21 2001
>Received: by wfhqex05.gfgsi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)id 
><KZJ9ZCSD>; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:55:40 -0400
>From [email protected] Tue Jun 12 06:55:23 2001
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>
>Marco:
>
>Sorry about not responding earlier to your question on the licensing, I was
>hopeful someone else would answer as I do not understand all of the issues
>involved.  As far as the SFL is concerned, all of our code is 
>un-restricted.
>The GNU license issue comes in on the components we include, like SNACC,
>Crypto++, and open-ssl (all of which have their own respective licenses, 
>not
>quite GNU).  The way I understand the licensing issue, you are welcome to
>incorporate any of these components without charge, but you must make
>available any changes to the components available in source form and in
>theory return any improvements to the components to the original authors 
>for
>general use.  I do not believe this source requirements extends to your
>application.  I do not believe you must provide the source of the public
>components as part of your distribution either, simply make it available if
>a user wants access to your modifications (e.g. perhaps a separate zip file
>on a web page).
>
>As to the use of the IDEA algorithm; you are absolutely correct in your
>assumption that the SFL is algorithm independent (as much as is possible).
>You can simply update the CTIL of choice (or create your own, painful).
>This is relatively easy, for the sm_free3 CTIL, you would update the OID
>init method to include the IDEA algorithm in the list for content 
>encryption
>algs, and update the SMTI_Encrypt(...) and SMIT_Decrypt(...) methods to
>check for the OID(s) and perform the new operations.  If you place the
>algorithm logic in a separate file and simply call your new functions in 
>the
>sm_free3.cpp file, we can place #ifdef logic to place these few changes 
>into
>the CTIL for your convenience, thus making the logic available later (I
>believe the Crypto++ library provides the IDEA logic).
>
>If this proves confusing, e-mail back, I can send you the exact module 
>names
>to update in the sm_free3 CTIL.  The hard part of adding an algorithm to 
>the
>CTIL is the testing, setting up the environment, etc.  In this case, you
>will be disabling any use of Key Agreement Recipient Info (KARI) 
>processing,
>since the KARI key wrap must match the content encyrption (e.g. there are
>OIDS for 3DES and RC2 for the matching key wrap algorithm).  If you use the
>Crypto++ logic, the calls should match closely to the existing 3DES and RC2
>class usage.
>
>Bob Colestock
>VDA
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marco Scarsi [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 4:20 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: inclusion of the IDEA algorithm
>
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>I am wonderig whether in the SFL there are any problems in including the
>IDEA algorithm for symmetric content encryption. As from the SFL software
>design, the High-Level libary should not include algorithm specific logic.
>Hence, if one provides a crypto token that supports IDEA, and bind it to 
>the
>
>high-level library, everything should work fine. Is this correct?
>Can anybody please confirm or reject my reasoning?
>
>I recently posted a question concerning the GNU public licence but didn't
>get any answer yet. Any idea on this topic?
>
>Thanks for help
>
>Marco Scarsi
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.