PGP 2.6 legal_kludge

nobody wrote:

> Also, concerning the PGP 2.3a/2.6/2.6ui controversy, is the only "problem"
> with 2.6 the fact that after 9/1/94 it will start reporting an incompatible
> version number that will make its output unreadable by older versions?  If
> so, and if source code is available, why couldn't the date checking routine
> be located in the source code and simply commented out, then the whole
> thing recompiled?

Because the license prohibits nuking the "legal_kludge".  You wouldn't
want to violate the MIT PGP 2.6 license, now would you. ;-)


Rich

Re:
> > Also, concerning the PGP 2.3a/2.6/2.6ui controversy, is the only "problem"
> > with 2.6 the fact that after 9/1/94 it will start reporting an incompatible
> > version number that will make its output unreadable by older versions?  If
> > so, and if source code is available, why couldn't the date checking routine
> > be located in the source code and simply commented out, then the whole
> > thing recompiled?

So what stops someone from patching 2.3?  Since 2.3 is already allegedly in
violation, why not just make it compatible with 2.6?

jpb@gate.net