From: email@example.com (Russell Nelson)
Message Hash: ba754a7141c6907c39bb7ab39a08ccc7d0c398ae9ff8ad5afb1852ff5476bb54
Message ID: <m0q69KT-000IB9C@crynwr>
Reply To: <9405250243.AA03397@acacia.itd.uts.EDU.AU>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-25 12:16:23 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 25 May 94 05:16:23 PDT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Russell Nelson) Date: Wed, 25 May 94 05:16:23 PDT To: email@example.com Subject: Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ? In-Reply-To: <9405250243.AA03397@acacia.itd.uts.EDU.AU> Message-ID: <m0q69KT-000IB9C@crynwr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Matthew Gream) Date: Wed, 25 May 94 12:43:46 EST Organization: University of Technology, Sydney. As the RSA patent is expected to expire in the coming years, one would expect the liberation of PGP, at least in terms of the RSA algorithm (negating the export control issues). The sinister fact of PGP 2.6, and other derived RSAREF product is that even as the patent itself expires, RSADSI still exerts control over PGP by way of RSAREF. You have to assume that RSA isn't being run by idiots. Either they're looking at closing their doors in seven years, or they've got a plan. If it were *my* company, I'd make sure that everyone depends on running my software. And since that's what I'd do, it's only reasonable to assume that that's what RSA is trying to do. So maybe what we (the c'punk community) need to do is maintain parallel versions of PGP (ick), one which continues to use 100% GPL'ed code, and another which uses RSAREF to stay legal. -russ <email@example.com> ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key 11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | Quakers do it in the light Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
Return to May 1994