[Cryptography] Toxic Combination

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Fri Dec 12 04:01:10 EST 2014

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Bill Frantz <frantz at pwpconsult.com> wrote:

What I'm saying in general is that non of these protocols
have intrinsic return to their "inventors", nor do they have
a "revenue only" usage model (cannot be used to build something
that is free).

> that PGP Corporation was a purely commercial enterprise based on PGP.

Yes, same example of SSH history / .com .

> which need compatibility and trust.

That comes from the free and open ness of the protocol development process,
it's not tied to revenue choices by those who elect to use the protocol.

> The Diffie Hellman algorithm was granted U.S. Patent 4,200,770 and was

Good point, patents, I forgot that, the one specific exeption to my rule
where the protocol was designed, or at least held out, for revenue itself.

> I wouldn't be surprised if the developer of the Bitcoin protocol didn't
> extract some money as an early adopter. There is, of course, no proof.

The developer chose to give the protocol away freely as open source.
And earned millions for adopting early.

> I don't recognize Pond or FOSS, and I've done enough free research for

free open source software / protocols / patent free rfc's, etc

The choice to generate revenue by embedding todays largely
free protocols is yours. Protocols are just protocols.

More information about the cryptography mailing list