Talk:MUGI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "Legal status"

The legal status of MUGI is not clear. The cipher is copyrighted by Hitachi and the company does not explain how the cipher might be used by any other entity.

I guess this means "patented", rather then "copyrighted", but I don't have a source either way to correct it myself. — Matt Crypto 14:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Aloha! It was me adding that comment before having an account at Wikipedia. What I tried to say is that the legal status for MUGI is really unclear. Hitachi has the copyright, but if they have any patents for it is unclear. It is also unclear in what ways they allow anybody else to use the cipher, what any pontial license agreements are attached etc. I have contacted both the Hitachi RP/official contacts and the more direct MUGI-author way. But the only response after about a year is one mail stating something to the effect of "we will look into it and get back to you".

Looking beyond MUGI, what do you think about trying to add information about patents, licenses etc to other algorithms? There are several algorithms that kan be really nasty to use, something Wikipedia users might fins interesting to know about. Things like ECC patents, The ETSI license for KASUMI etc. Another example is the Hifn LZS compression algorithm that even though it is an IETF RFC comes with a scary license agreeement:

  Hi/fn, Inc. holds patents on the LZS algorithm. Licenses for a
  reference implementation are available for use in IPPCP, IPSec, TLS
  and PPP applications at no cost.  Source and object licenses are
  available on a non-discriminatory basis. Hardware implementations are
  also available.  For more information, contact Hi/fn at the address
  listed with the authors' addresses.

So if one was to try and make a hardware version of this then...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joachim Strombergson (talk • contribs) 10:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, you can't copyright an algorithm, only an implementation (a "particular expression") of that algorithm. Hitachi could be holding a patent on the MUGI algorithm, though. I agree that it's a very good idea to discuss the patent status for an algorithm in its article. I think we do mention it in a few crypto algorithm pages algorithm, but certainly not all. (P.S. You can sign your talk page posts so it's easier for others to follow the conversation; you can use four tildes in a row: ~~~~). — Matt Crypto 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Aloha!

If I remember correctly, at least ETSI also claim copyright for Kasumi and control of implementation. But IANAL. But since IMHO knowledge about the legal status of an algorithm is important we should try and add it whenever possible. The big question is if one should write something to the effect of "legal status unknown" for algorithms where it is not clear? Watchman 14:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)