Re: iSCSI: PAK: an alternative to SRP and DH-CHAP

[Philip MacKenzie <philmac@research.bell-labs.com>]

> Well, that doesn't quite cut it. What about folks who want to make
> (commercial) products based on a non-commercial OS?  [:-)] One of the things
> NetBSD strives for (and I think all the other *BSDs do too) is to permit
> *any* vendor to use NetBSD for whatever s/he wants, without encumbrance.
> Having to go to Lucent (or Phoenix) and pay licensing fees goes against
> that.
> 
> I think the only thing which will really work is a license like Stanford
> has for SRP. And Lucent doesn't seem interested in such a thing.
> 
> 


So are you saying that no other part of iSCSI requires
licensing from anyone, and the only thing that's holding
it up is the password authentication?  But from an earlier
post of Pat Thaler:

> We also have a letter from EMC on "the 024 patent" where EMC offers a
> license under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms with a grant back. If
> you consider a non-free license to be a barrier to smooth progress then we
> already have that problem independent of SRP, but that position doesn't seem
> to be supported by RFC 2026.
> 

So it seems that iSCSI already has licensing issues...

-Phil