NODE 65be3a49Can't touch this, ugly Americans! (PGP License file)
Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:04:21 +0800
First off, congratulations and thanks to Stale and everyone else for
scanning in the source to PGP5.0i (http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/)
However, theres an ugly problem with the license.
(http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/pgp50i-license.txt)
In Section 1.c.(d), permission is given to port PGP to other
platforms. However, permission to distribute those ports is
explicitly denied.
Could the license be modified to allow people who port the software to
redisctribute ports? There is enough FUD about using PGP without PGP,
Inc contributing to that by overly tight licensing.
Adam
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume
NODE 784e34cbOk, maybe we can touch this. :)
Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:17:40 +0800
Sorry about the subject; I had misread the license file originally,
thought it said PGP wouldn't take ports from folks in the US; what is
says is that if you're outside the US, you have to assert that you got
no help from PGP employees.
Anyone got a BSDI port working? (I'm hitting errors in lib/pgp/keydb)
Adam
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume
NODE e68eb371Re: Can't touch this, ugly Americans! (PGP License file)
nospam-seesignature@ceddec.comTue, 12 Aug 1997 03:16:33 +0800
On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Adam Shostack wrote:
> First off, congratulations and thanks to Stale and everyone else for
> scanning in the source to PGP5.0i (http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/)
>
> However, theres an ugly problem with the license.
> (http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/pgp50i-license.txt)
>
> In Section 1.c.(d), permission is given to port PGP to other
> platforms. However, permission to distribute those ports is
> explicitly denied.
>
> Could the license be modified to allow people who port the software to
> redisctribute ports? There is enough FUD about using PGP without PGP,
> Inc contributing to that by overly tight licensing.
>
> Adam
Or what do you do about bugs? It mentions corrections, but not who to
send them to.
On DEC Alpha/axp under Linux, include/pgpUsuals.h has a test for a big
ULONG_MAX that defines HAVE64 as 1 on 64 bit machines like the alpha
But the very next test has #ifndef HAVE64 where there is a typedef for
word64, which won't happen. But if HAVE64 is 1, in pgpMD5.c it will
really want word64 defined or it will bomb.
Something is wrong, but if I copy the typedef, it seems to get further
(compiling as we speak - the old UDBs aren't the fastest alphas).
Now, where should I send this information or the patch?
--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
NODE 3949faaaRe: Can't touch this, ugly Americans! (PGP License file)
"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>Tue, 12 Aug 1997 05:07:56 +0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In <97Aug11.145941edt.32258@brickwall.ceddec.com>, on 08/11/97
at 03:00 PM, nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com said:
>On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Adam Shostack wrote:
>> First off, congratulations and thanks to Stale and everyone else for
>> scanning in the source to PGP5.0i (http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/)
>>
>> However, theres an ugly problem with the license.
>> (http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/pgp50i-license.txt)
>>
>> In Section 1.c.(d), permission is given to port PGP to other
>> platforms. However, permission to distribute those ports is
>> explicitly denied.
>>
>> Could the license be modified to allow people who port the software to
>> redisctribute ports? There is enough FUD about using PGP without PGP,
>> Inc contributing to that by overly tight licensing.
>>
>> Adam
>Or what do you do about bugs? It mentions corrections, but not who to
>send them to.
>On DEC Alpha/axp under Linux, include/pgpUsuals.h has a test for a big
>ULONG_MAX that defines HAVE64 as 1 on 64 bit machines like the alpha
>But the very next test has #ifndef HAVE64 where there is a typedef for
>word64, which won't happen. But if HAVE64 is 1, in pgpMD5.c it will
>really want word64 defined or it will bomb.
>Something is wrong, but if I copy the typedef, it seems to get further
>(compiling as we speak - the old UDBs aren't the fastest alphas).
>Now, where should I send this information or the patch?
Here is a patch I received for the pgpUsuals.h file:
There is a bug in src/lib/pgp/include/pgpUsuals.h on 64-bit machines. The
appended patch seems to cure the problem --- the word64 type needs to be
defined, even when the machine has a native 64-bit type.
*** src/lib/pgp/include/pgpUsuals.h~ Sat Aug 9 22:44:58 1997 ---
src/lib/pgp/include/pgpUsuals.h Mon Aug 11 11:03:38 1997
***************
*** 52,57 ****
- --- 52,58 ----
#if ULONG_MAX == 0xfffffffffffffffful
typedef ulong bnword64;
#define BNWORD64 bnword64
+ typedef ulong word64;
#define HAVE64 1
#endif
#endif
- --
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0
Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000
iQCVAwUBM+9cF49Co1n+aLhhAQEtSAQAyF1tsGfk7gxtPY20dsdIrrc0nAVcpnDt
zWideMkJG+WsnnFlhFQBWCwMzMswRJJlqxy4shegZDSBgLLuYN+5SVNrRufChFYX
Ob9VS4xWM8lJAewZeH5GNqNokrE2wjhMrkKJ0RDr1f7RvmLN+Bpa6K3/UqtaVYAA
tw1hbhz8teU=
=e/pP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----