From: "Arthur R. McGee" <amcgee@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 8 May 93 08:57:35 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: An end to the PGP quarrel? (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9305080834.C9661-c100000@netcom2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 01:57:56 +0800
From: John Perry Barlow <barlow@eff.org>
To: Steve Jackson <sjackson@tic.com>, eff-austin@tic.com,
     eff-austin-directors@tic.com
Cc: thesegroups@tic.com
Subject: Re: An end to the PGP quarrel?

At  2:13 AM 5/7/93 -0500, Steve Jackson wrote:
>The creator of PGP has proposed to Jim Bidzos of RSA that RSA approve
>a new, already-written version of PGP which uses "RSAREF," an unprotected
>version of the PGP algorithm. I propose that EFF-Austin write to Bidzos
>endorsing the suggestion.

While I don't necessarily want to us to stampede at ol' Jim I wrote him the
following yesterday:

Jim,

John Gilmore passed on to me Phil Zimmerman's recent peace overture to you.

I expect I am joined by nearly everyone who cares about the issue of
cryptography in the hope that you will bury an understandable sense of
rancor and accept his offer. 

Further, if there is anything which the Electronic Frontier Foundation can
do to introduce light and good will into the area between you and Phil, be
assured we are ready and willing. 

While I realize that PGP has been a burr under your saddle for the last two
years...growing steadily more irritating as it proliferated like a virus
around the planet...one could argue that it has actually done PK Partners
more good that harm. 

By introducing thousands to both public key cryptography and the RSA
approach to it, it has gone a long way toward establishing RSA as the de
facto international standard for personal encryption. This can only work to
your long term benefit.

On the other hand, if the current course of things remains fixed and no
resolution is made between PK Partners and Phil, then PGP will continue to
be modified and improved by many international volunteers and will
eventually become seriously competitive to your own products. 

To me, it appears you have a choice between a position where everybody
loses and one where everybody wins. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the only factor
which supports the former course is an emotional sense of violated
principle. As I say, I could hardly fault you for feeling bitter after all
that's happened, but I sincerely hope you'll be able to rise above it.

And please let me know if we can help in any way.

Thanks,

John Perry Barlow