Talk:NESSIE

'Public domain' ambiguity

Ciphergoth,

The term public domain is probably best known from copyright discussions, but it applies to intellectual property more generally. When the patent on an invention expires, it becomes available for use by anyone, and the (no longer enforceable) patent is now held 'in the public domain'. Accordingly, your effort in rewording to avoid the phrase, while admirable, was more work than was required. I'll come back (if I remember) to reinstate it after a period for comment -- from you or anyone else. ww 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term "public domain" is in respect to both patent and copyright (from public domain: "If an item is not in the public domain, this may be the result of a proprietary interest as represented by a copyright or patent"). However, there's the possibility of confusion when it comes to describing a cipher as in public domain, namely, are we saying the cipher is patented, or are we saying that an implementation has been released into the public domain (in the copyright sense)? I think many people could assume the latter, and Ciphergoth's new wording makes it clear what exactly is being said. — Matt Crypto 18:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. If I patent crypto algorithm FOO, I have an enforcable right to exclusive use of it -- in any form whatsoever -- wherever the patent runs. RSA was not patented outside the US, for technical timing reasons having to do with patent office rules, but was patented within the US. So pgpi.com could post and distribute PGP containing RSA without trouble. It could not post and distribute RSADSI's source code of RSA without permission as it was covered by copright upon creation. But no implementation, regardless of copyright status (I wrote one in 1980, so I owned the copyright in it) could be used in the US as long as the patnet continued in force, lest RSA sue. And win. That this sort of reasoning is twisty twisty is no impediment tot the legal beagles and the courts, so perforce we must deal, there being no choice.

So you and Ciphergoth could exchange successive versions of some implementation of FOO, and one or both would likely own the copyright, and you could even publish the final version somewhere and license it under the GPL or even put it into the public domain. As long my patent is not in the public domain, you can't use it, lest I sue, and win. If I put the patent into the public domain (as RSADSI did for RSA in the last month or so) you free to do as you wish and build your implementation into whatever you'd like. But only then. ww 08:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but since "public domain" can refer to either the patent status of the algorithm or the copyright status of some implementation (or both), when we label an algorithm as "public domain" it may not be clear which we're referring to. Hence Ciphergoth's change to make explicit that we're discussing patents clears up that possible confusion. — Matt Crypto 16:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

agreed. ww 17:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to merge. As I read it, this discussion is roughly evenly divided between opposers and supporters of the merge. I see no reason to believe that this will resolve itself by extending the discussion. Quasihuman | Talk 11:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Following a discussion in Talk:Q (cipher), we propose that merely being part of a competition that allows any entrant isn't a mark of sufficient notability to have an article, and so those ciphers that never made it past the first round of these contests and have no other claim to notability should be merged into this article. I think that's Q (cipher), Nimbus (cipher), NUSH, Grand Cru (cipher), Hierocrypt, LILI-128. ciphergoth (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Hierocrypt, since those ciphers were actually adopted as Japanese standards through CRYPTREC, giving them more notability. Ntsimp (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's enough to save it. Thanks! ciphergoth (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much about how the articles are structured (one big or several small) but even ciphers like Q have reliable sources published about them, enough to sustain an article. So I would only support merging if the coverage of the ciphers isn't cut down. Mangojuice^talk 15:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Have anyone Grand Cru source code (implementation)? It's great cipher, I think it must have an article, not only as part of NESSIE. --Alexanderwdark (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your liking of it is enough to justify an article by itself :-) what is it you like about it? ciphergoth (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than combine with NESSIE, consider... NESSIE was a competition and so discussion about the history and selection "process" makes sense there. Indeed, the NESSIE article should identify all the submissions and dispositions, but the NESSIE article is not the proper place for a general discussion comparing and contrasting algorithm architectures. To do so would leave out algorithms not submitted to NESSIE, and an incomplete architectural discussion would result. Leave Grand Chu as an individual article, or perhaps combine it with an article discussing the strengths and weaknesses of all block ciphers, including those that were never part of the NESSIE process. That would make more sense to me. --Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.201.22 (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Even if these ciphers technically don't pass WP:N, I'd say we invoke WP:IGNORE here, until someone actually proposes them for deletion or something. -- intgr [talk] 15:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. It makes no sense to have the NESSIE article covering the selected algorithms with just a few words (link and submittor) and the non-selected algorythms in great detail. --Danh (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.