search

JamesTheAwesomeDude / pypqc

Attempt to expose Wiggers and Stebila's PQClean via Python CFFI
Other
0 stars 1 forks source link

Resolve patent encumbrance status of HQC #10

Open JamesTheAwesomeDude opened 5 months ago

JamesTheAwesomeDude commented 5 months ago

To: Philippe Gaborit [official "Main contact" for HQC]
Sent: January 19, 2024 12:28 PM CST

Philippe,

I'm writing to ask you whether any patent license for EP2537284B1 will be provided for free in the event that HQC is not selected for standardization.

I'm currently building Python bindings for PQClean, but I'm wondering if I need to insert a warning like “this module could be removed at any time, if HQC isn't selected by NIST” to keep prospective users aware.

Thanks,

JamesTheAwesomeDude commented 5 months ago

I would have contacted Carlos Aguilar Melchor, who seems to be much more involved with both the codebase and the legal shell-game of the patents; but I could not find his e-mail address, and Philippe is the named primary contact anyway

JamesTheAwesomeDude commented 5 months ago

this is a certified bruh moment

https://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq

… If people who write code and documentation don't read patents, and the volunteers who develop code for a package do not maintain the same package or a related package, the aggressor may find it difficult to sue anybody at all.

The specifics of any given situation, however, will undoubtedly be crucial. As with all other matters of the kind, if you believe a patent is likely to be asserted against your distribution or its volunteers, you should contact SFLC or another lawyer immediately.

Are you suggesting that it is better for developers and contributors not to read patents? If yes, why?

Yes. Unfortunately, U.S. patent law creates disincentives for searching through patents, even though one of the main justifications given for the patent system is that the patent teaches the public how to practice an invention that might otherwise be secret. "Willful" infringement subjects the infringer to enhanced damages when they are aware of the patent and intend to infringe, and reading patents increases the probability that subsequent infringement will be found to be willful. Moreover, we find that developers often assume that the patents they discover are broader in scope than they actually are, and thus such developers become overly or needlessly worried. If, despite this, you do intend to conduct a patent search, you should seek legal advice first.