NODE b4650699RE: PGP bastardization
nobody@shell.portal.comThu, 14 Jul 94 22:39:24 PDT
> You may be correct in that Phil Zimmermann has no legal
> recourse, but I counldn't say for sure. I am more concerned
> with the ethical issues. What have you called your new
> super-duper pgp? If you make it abundantly clear that it is
> *your* hack of pgp, and not supported in any way by RSA, MIT, or
> prz, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it.
Isn't it ironic, though, that Phil Zimmerman was the victim of a
similar accusation by PKP/RSA -- "pirating" code? IMHO, that's
also who the person who released this new version really needs to
worry about. If they modified PGP 2.3a code, then they're in the
same boat as PRZ if they distribute it. The GPL only covers
PRZ's (and Colin Plumb's) code, not the RSA routines. Also, I
wonder whether the RSAREF license on 2.6 is valid for modified
versions?
Geeez! If it's just the name, then call this newest version
"TAP" for "Totally Awesome Privacy", or something similar. Just
so the "look and feel" are the same. Nothing would stop the end
user from renaming it from TAP.EXE to PGP.EXE, of course... <g>
I can sympathize with PRZ in wanting to protect his "baby" from
the hackings of "unwashed Philistines" or whatever, but had he
taken that attitude regarding the original RSA code, PGP might
never have come about.
NODE 6c4a87d9Re: PGP bastardization
Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>Fri, 15 Jul 94 03:41:26 PDT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 22:40:42 -0700
From: nobody@shell.portal.com
Geeez! If it's just the name, then call this newest version
"TAP" for "Totally Awesome Privacy", or something similar.
I've been sending a cousin-in-law some information on privacy issues
and the net. She's works in a policy office in DC and she's currently
working on a series of monographs relating to such things. Among this
stuff has been, of course, information on PGP. Apparently, her boss
asked something along the lines of `If it's so good, why is it only
Pretty Good Privacy' -- he apparently has a general problem of taking
things very literally.
He also apparently won't let employees take disks home because they
might infect them with viruses and them bring them back in. Of
course, he doesn't stop them from bringing in disks that *weren't*
originally taken home from the office . . . .
Rick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAgUBLiZniJNR+/jb2ZlNAQFjigQAxJoRdb5l2HV1JViftzKUxatVzgnd78h4
HgGvCBhygTlWU8B393JXNe6tKO2MLxjsZevythY2s+hVnPOG4rpc6s+KI4SScdbi
ls60W/XHPP1HMank0A+GlyLzvpn/TzuW3f03818OS9JdlDfRM1CFs4eLKDCEWyNO
ryj+1xDMLCE=
=qMzu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----