Re: Are RSA licenses fungible?

> From owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Sat Aug 27 22:08 PDT 1994
> Received: from relay2.UU.NET (relay2.UU.NET [192.48.96.7]) by ar.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA01459 for <wessorh@ar.com>; Sat, 27 Aug 1994 22:08:22 -0700
> Received: from toad.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP 
> 	id QQxewa21172; Sun, 28 Aug 1994 01:07:36 -0400
> Received: by toad.com id AA01260; Sat, 27 Aug 94 21:59:17 PDT
> Received: from nic.cerf.net by toad.com id AA01254; Sat, 27 Aug 94 21:59:07 PDT
> Received: from ininx (ininx.com [134.24.4.70]) by nic.cerf.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA26020; Sat, 27 Aug 1994 21:59:00 -0700
> Received: by ininx (4.0/SMI-4.0)
> 	id AA05474; Sat, 27 Aug 94 20:42:04 PDT
> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 20:42:04 PDT
> From: jkreznar@ininx.com (John E. Kreznar)
> To: perobich@ingr.com
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Are RSA licenses fungible?
> Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 2530
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[snip]


> 
> JEK:
> Is this true even if the person is a registered buyer of 2.7?
> 
> Public availability of a program's source code is a powerful means to be
> sure that it is correct.  How can one gain such assurance for PGP 2.7?
> 
> How could confidence in the correctness of a secret program, even by its
> author, ever match that of a program open to public scrutiny by any
> interested person?
> 
> Uhlhorn:
> ViaCrypt has exactly the same position if a person were to
> make 2.6ui look like ViaCrypt PGP V2.7 regardless of whether or
> not they are a registered user of ViaCrypt PGP V2.7.  It is plain
> dishonest and illegal!
> 
> [End of Uhlhorn dialogue]
> 
> Granted, the issue here is different from yours, but it does give an
> idea of how ViaCrypt might react to an attempt to use their license to
> legitimize your use of another PGP.  Hope this helps.
> 
> 	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
> 	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.3a
> 
> iQCVAgUBLmAGZ8Dhz44ugybJAQGSKAQAjlOFHarkVhF7Cjcy3xX3v7A4XyAH5B7H
> C61efV7poiJXcYCV8H6t2w6RGrk1ux/ynwoseVOjTdDraK5crqxxITCplLqY13Vv
> rzaY0BFOWOLBIgty9Gjh4Oz4v89lRKxn2MhsflrS/TxMBZSeaYec7K4ufDZwCvWN
> JQ94CgrJM/g=
> =1O6L
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

why don't you just buy an RSA toolkit licence and patch it inro whatever
you want, just don't redestribute code... 

-Rick

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

Not long after my original post, I got a message from Dave Barnhart of
ViaCrypt. He asserted that it would be "illegal" for me to buy a
ViaCrypt license, then use PGP 2.6-based code in my own application,
and that it would violate both my RSAREF license and my MIT license on
any copies of PGP 2.6 that I was licensed to operate.

So, the short answer is I'm going to roll my own instead of using PGP
or a PGP-based tool. D-H for the initial key exchange, plus 3DES for
the actual encryption, and poof! away I go. And yes, I know D-H is
claimed by RSA's PK patents.

- -Paul

- -- 
Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG        |  Demand that your elected reps support the
perobich@ingr.com             |  Constitution, the whole Constitution, and
Not speaking for Intergraph.  |  nothing but the Constitution.

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

iQCVAgUBLmHhL6fb4pLe9tolAQFgAAQAn1hP9L1Tu8XwnQNwJ0ZqwpxPqJhSTZ4r
iKjre6KBFQ/2V5lmd6booHoN9Acper2dTV1Pzlj4dhqK8ox9Fo6kgIjfsNZQdCRA
JrWzgAyY6TvCEjkS2B5Uig90Ar2f/cKcwiyhm4nJ/0yTnJbjas25Ymu+DRH3zW4E
03EG+HSgKpg=
=kVSt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

"Rick H. Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com> writes

> why don't you just buy an RSA toolkit licence and patch it inro whatever
> you want, just don't redestribute code...

The obstacle there has been that this is for a person who refuses on
principle to affirm that he is a national person of any nation.  I think
that such a person could not obtain an RSA toolkit license.  Right?

The interest in the ViaCrypt option arose on the hope that their
national requirements (merely being ``in the US'') might be satisfied,
even if those for MIT's PGP 2.6 (affirmation that one is a US citizen or
national) could not be.

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLmDpF8Dhz44ugybJAQEtJQP/VsvgQ2AjvwLB6IDETveF49Ll2MPjtqQq
33/eWlWcqLxYKwDE3GAM/2ug4yAQtLlRg6IciNnzj7nS/4dZgeHxEB+bmMt3kTra
JvTKLiJcEWAS1Y50mE5Dqnv6eTLlEy9TUcViTPkOWtWhZHcKi/GyuwPxvW4ZU17d
3aAHXaFi39M=
=MU/N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----