NODE a48faa6eRE: PGP bastardization
nobody@shell.portal.comWed, 13 Jul 94 20:32:33 PDT
Philip Zimmermann <prz@acm.org> wrote:
> Accordingly, I do not approve of anyone modifying the cryptographic
> characteristics of PGP. PGP and Pretty Good Privacy are my trademarks,
> and their good name is trusted the world over because of the care that
> I have exercised in selecting its algorithms.
[comments deleted]
> cc: Curtis Karnow
> Landels, Ripley, and Diamond
My copy of PGP (v2.3a) came with the following notice:
> Pretty Good Privacy version 2.3a - READ ME FIRST
> Notes by Perry Metzger
> Edited for 2.3a by Colin Plumb
[intervening material deleted]
> PGP is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
> Licence, a copy of which is included. In brief, this states that
> PGP is freely distributable, subject only to the condition that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> if you make a modified version and choose to distribute it, you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> must make it freely distributable as well. See the file COPYING
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> for details.
What are your LEGAL grounds for attempting to retain "editorial
control" over PGP, as commendable as your desire to maintain its
integrity undoubtedly is? The notice distributed with PGP itself
seems to say otherwise -- only that modifications must also be
freely distributable. So why CC: your letter to what appears to
be a legal firm? Does the legal term "in terrorem" apply here? <g>
NODE f9161800Re: PGP bastardization
"Jim Sewell" <jims@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>Thu, 14 Jul 94 06:43:37 PDT
<In mail nobody@shell.portal.com said:>
>
> What are [prz's] LEGAL grounds for attempting to retain "editorial
> control" over PGP, as commendable as your desire to maintain its
> integrity undoubtedly is? The notice distributed with PGP itself
> seems to say otherwise -- only that modifications must also be
> freely distributable. So why CC: your letter to what appears to
> be a legal firm? Does the legal term "in terrorem" apply here? <g>
The issue is not one of copyrights as much as of reputation. If
people believe that prz is a lousy security consultant as a result
of irresponsible hacks made on PGP then his reputation has been
damaged and therefore he is entitled to restitution.
Note: I'm not implying that Tom's hacks are irresponsible since
I've not seen them. Simply that if they are then prz has
right to 'make a case'
Jim
--
Tantalus Inc. Jim Sewell Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ
P.O. Box 2310 Programmer Internet: jims@mpgn.com
Key West, FL 33045 C-Unix-PC Compu$erve: 71061,1027
(305)293-8100 PGP via email on request.
1K-bit Fingerprint: 8E 14 68 90 37 87 EF B3 C4 CF CD 9A 3E F9 4A 73