Re: PGP bastardization (fwd)

While I sympathise 100% with prz's annoyance at this hack, I should
remind him that he *did* put pgp out under the GPL and anyone is free
to modify it in any way they chose as long as they too release it
under the GPL.

He has no legal comeback (ha, there's an interesting irony about the
author of the world's leading piece of guerilla software...) and the
most he can do is apply peer pressure to get the guy to back down.

(Personally I'd never release anything under the GPL for precisely
that reason and others...)

G

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 02:58:44 +0100
   From: gtoal@an-teallach.com (Graham Toal)

   While I sympathise 100% with prz's annoyance at this hack, I should
   remind him that he *did* put pgp out under the GPL and anyone is free
   to modify it in any way they chose as long as they too release it
   under the GPL.

   He has no legal comeback (ha, there's an interesting irony about the
   author of the world's leading piece of guerilla software...) and the
   most he can do is apply peer pressure to get the guy to back down.

The GPL says nothing about what you can call a program.  Phil can
certainly require someone to call it something other than PGP.  The GPL
also requires, in section 2a, that changes be prominently marked.

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>    http://www.crynwr.com/crynwr/nelson.html
Crynwr Software   | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key
11 Grant St.      | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX)  | What is thee doing about it?
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.

Graham Toal writes:

> While I sympathise 100% with prz's annoyance at this hack, I should
> remind him that he *did* put pgp out under the GPL and anyone is free
> to modify it in any way they chose as long as they too release it
> under the GPL.

> He has no legal comeback

I'm not so sure.  The code was released under the GPL.  The names PGP, 
Pretty Good Privacy, and Phil's Pretty Good Software were not.  

People can make anything they want out of the code, as long as they 
also release it under the GPL and call it something else.

Doesn't seem like a major artistic limitation.

-- 
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
    Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 23:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
    
    The code was released under the GPL.  The names PGP, Pretty Good
    Privacy, and Phil's Pretty Good Software were not.
    
    People can make anything they want out of the code, as long as they 
    also release it under the GPL and call it something else.
    
- From readme.doc:

  PGP is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence

How is it that you come to the conclusion that only the part of PGP
which is the code is covered by GPL and not the part of PGP which is
the name?  Gee, maybe we should refer to all that GPL case law
precedent to resolve this :-)

			Rick

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAgUBLiV2MpNR+/jb2ZlNAQG1awQAoxC5lpKVwIfuj0YXBg7RdeT4lMYSyTrg
EFeKBKumiXmpSEqVQQzf1UqRJ5o7azuLhctWrYWkXBzj9c18T1azU5nZKKnhAAGn
FaCs/iFq1hBSAqxSEUkIJVDhgDSrf7WkMh7gh4tm5zfU51uw8goS8aPpay8iCPIL
fYyEd5ViLxM=
=WG2n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----