From: Jim Gillogly <jim@rand.org>
Date: Mon, 9 May 94 14:54:12 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: PGP 2.5 changes
In-Reply-To: <199405092033.NAA14141@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <9405092153.AA08849@mycroft.rand.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com> writes:
> Below I have included the contents of the file newfor25.doc from the
> PGP 2.5 beta release which I just grabbed...

nefor25.doc writes:
> Another RSAREF limitation is that it cannot cope with keys longer than
> 1024 bits.  PGP now prints a reasonably polite error message in such a
> case.

Reasonably polite?  It says "Error: Bad pass phrase."  That doesn't
sound at all polite to me.  And since my key is 1234 bits, I'm vastly
unimpressed.  What in the world is the point of this restriction?

I see a lot of "what it is" but not "why it is" in the docs.  Would one of
the MIT reps mind explaining some of the reasoning behind the restrictions
and deals that were made?

> Since the RSAREF license conflicts with the GNU General Public License that
> PGP was formerly distributed under, the GPL had to go.  PGP is still

How do you get rid of a copyleft?  Just snip it out of the docs?
Don't forget to take it out of the manifest also:

	DOC\COPYING      - GNU General Public Licence

If the plan was to supplant the freeware 2.3a with a nice legal US version,
I don't think this has made it yet: eliminating compatibility with older
versions (for which read "MY BELOVED KEY") can lead to hard feelings and
user resistance.  I like bug fixes, but not at the expense of functionality.

Of course, this is a beta version, and annoyances may be fixed later.
I'll watch for the next international version, and see if it's less annoying.

	Jim Gillogly
	Mersday, 18 Thrimidge S.R. 1994, 21:53