From: "Pat Farrell"  <pfarrell@cs.gmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 93 06:21:29 PDT
To: jim@rsa.com
Subject: Fw: RSA approval for freeware, PGP compatible user program.
Message-ID: <33701.pfarrell@cs.gmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I'm a cypherpunk. I write code. I have already told the list my feelings on
TC "the suit" May's suggestion. I read the post that no one asked PKP for
permission to include RSA in a freely distributed strong cryptography
package that was PGP compatible.

So I asked.

I found that PKP has two simple philosophies: (1) they have a valid patent,
and you must agree to this fact and (2) if you make money, they make
money. I don't have the interest, energy, time, or money to argue with (1),
so fine, I'll say I agree. I sure haven't made any money off PGP, and
probably won't off of this.

I found that Jeff Schiller of MIT suggested an effort to develop something
on RSAREF from scratch that would bring the pgp, RIPEM, TIS/PEM, etc.
communities together.  The PKP folks are strongly supportive. They (PKP,
MIT, pfarrell. et al) need to do programming and reverse engineering.
If other cypherpunks can code, volunteer.

While the source for PGP is available, it is copyrighted. Unless we can get
the copyright owner's permission, we'll have to reimplement it from scratch.
Not an attractive idea.

If you have a religious belief that software patents are immoral, that PKP
is really a front for the NSA, etc. and don't want to help, that is fine
with me.  Simply don't volunteer. I'd like to believe that this really
isn't a splintering of the cypherpunks.

My guess as to why PKP is willing to talk to me and others now, and was not
willing to agree to license PGP was that Phil never got permission to use
RSA, and so agreeing to license users use of PGP is admission that using
RSA without PKP permission is OK. There is no way that PKP can allow that to
be infered.

Pat