RedHat forks OpenSSH?

[Sten Drescher]

Theo de Raadt wrote:

>>Impolite is the implication that RedHat is forking OpenSSH because
>>they're prudently removing specific files which are definitely of a
>>questionable legal status.
>>    
>>
>What is so questionable about them?
>  
>
I already pointed that out.

>Is there a trademark?
>
>Is there a patent?
>
>Were the files written by them, and therefore copyrighted by them?
>  
>
Completely irrelevant to a claimed trade secret.

>Last I looked, the files were based on
>
>	- entirely legal reverse engineering efforts
>  
>
Even if the reverse engineering was legal in Norway, using the results 
of that reverse engineering in the United States may not be.

>	- taken by a cast of hundreds on the net
>
>	- of a trade secret algorithm
>
>	- (which even in the case of DVDs is useless without the
>	  actual keys from the disks, by the way)
>
>	- and the actual files in question are written by a german
>	  developer of ours
>  
>
Again, that's not relevant.  If the DVD CCS made reasonable efforts to 
maintain their trade secret, and it was disclosed by a violation of 
their license (with the DVD player manufacturer), then they can still 
argue that it can still be considered to be a trade secret.

>So when you say 'questionable legal status', which laws are you talking
>about?
>  
>
The laws of the state of California, for one.  The preliminary 
injunction in /DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner/ was only 
lifted this past March.  
http://www.mofo.com/news/general.cfm?MCatID=9006&concentrationID=&ID=1180&Type=5  
Even though the DVD CCA has dropped this particular case, they have not 
given up their claim of a trade secret (witness the demise of 321 
Studios at their hands). 

>Either you tell us which laws you are talking about, or you are
>precisely the kind of people who DVD CCA should be pushing around.
>  
>
Done.

>They don't have a leg to stand on.
>
They had enough of a leg to drag out their case versus Bunner for 5 
years, and enough of a case to drive 321 Studios out of business.

>But one of them is a fight worth fighting and one of them is
>associated with a bunch of spineless wimps who don't understand how to
>use previous multiple-use rulings in our favour.  Wimps.
>  
>
That's easy to say when its not your money being spent in the fight.  
Even when you're right, proving it in court isn't inexpensive.  While it 
might not be good for your ego, I can understand why Red Hat would 
consider fighting SCO over Linux to be a better use of their money than 
risking a fight with the DVD CCA over CSS in OpenSSH.

Regards, Sten