From: Richard Johnson <johnsonr@spot.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Thu, 5 May 94 20:22:06 PDT
To: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)
Subject: Re: Cypherpunks change bytes!
In-Reply-To: <m0pzBw2-0001WLC@ideath.goldenbear.com>
Message-ID: <199405060321.VAA13405@spot.Colorado.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

  From the keyboard of:  greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)

> I don't see the point in forcing everyone to patch their binaries or
> recompile from source - does anyone else? Bidzos & Co. are certainly smart
> enough to anticipate this step. What's the catch?

Maybe the only 'catch' is legal niceties.  PKP/RSADSI considers non-
RSAREF PGP to be infringing on their patent.  If they allow such use
to continue, without challenging it as they have been doing, it might
cause problems for them in the future.  Some judge might go along with
a contention that PGP was implicitly licensed (but I'm not a lawyer,
thank Grod).

By requiring the keyserver to only support legitimately licensed
versions of PGP, PKP/RSADSI are only doing what they've always done;
enforcing their patent.

Perhaps there doesn't have to be any difference in the format of keys
(other than the version number) for the legal situation to become more
calm.


Richard

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.5

iQBVAgUBLcnFDMJksDcEdQkXAQEDIAIAj83tGXiGaCYQKWmFgOQD2ZPyJzyBS/MR
ZD4hTNZg+cHY3o/SebnrwoiL1ndCEGaO21vEaY8ySnIX58AX86Tu+w==
=Qo9c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

PS - For the humor-impaired, no, I don't have MIT PGP version 2.5 yet.