Rüdiger Sonderfeld cplusplushelp@gmx.net
Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:05:46 +0100

On Wednesday, 11. December 2002 14:49, you wrote:
> 	Probably true.  The RC4 vs ARC4 vs ARCFOUR debate goes back to
> the early appearance of a public "RC4" and RSA's claim that it really
> wasn't RC4 and then their claim that is was copyrighted and then their
> claim that it was trade secret (or maybe it was the other way around).
> Somewhere in there, someone changed the name to ARC4, I think, to avoid
> some claims of Trademark infringement.  Yup, it's caused a lot of
> confusion for a lot of people.  Yup, much of it could have been avoided.
> I don't know about the "an enum type mapping RC4 to ARCFOUR" but
> when intellectual property rights issues get involved if things weren't
> so pathetic, I would agree that they would be silly.  At least the
> damn thing wasn't patented like IDEA.

I don't think that RSA will blame the libgcrypt developers for using the name 

But what is about a IBM MARS Modul for the libgcrypt? I wrote a modul (at the 
moment I'm debugging it and checking the implementation)