1994-05-27 - v2.6 for the rest of us

Header Data

From: Paul “K.” Strong <pauls@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (cypherpunks list)
Message Hash: 6d3844bd9daffed42342334b0b95206e3937abe3c6110c3e56bf36463cda7cf9
Message ID: <25654.9405271928@lt1.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk.>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-27 19:32:35 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 27 May 94 12:32:35 PDT

Raw message

From: Paul "K." Strong <pauls@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 May 94 12:32:35 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (cypherpunks list)
Subject: v2.6 for the rest of us
Message-ID: <25654.9405271928@lt1.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk.>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jeff Barber wrote:
>While creating a 2.6-like version from 2.3a seems a worthy goal, this
>supporting argument is flawed.  The original PGP was written in the USA
>and, never having received the proper export approvals, must have been
>"illegally exported."   Isn't Phil Zimmerman being "investigated" by a
>grand jury for this even now?  So, it would seem to me that a bulletin
>board carrying any version of PGP holds illegally exported software (wrt
>US law).  How does 2.3a differ from 2.6 in this respect?
 
Ok, you got me there!  My supporting argument is indeed flawed.
 
However, I would say that most people _regard_ v2.3a as a legal version 
outside the USA and so are willing to carry it on their systems; and at this 
time I believe nothing concrete to the contrary has been proved.  
 
Versions 2.5 and 2.6 however are obviously illegal exports, and I think that 
it is the fact that people think of one as legal and the other as illegal 
that makes the difference, and therefore we who are outside the USA need our 
own version to be brought up to date.
 
I have, at this time, been informed of two separate people working on a new 
version that is compatible with 2.6, based on 2.3a code.
 
Maybe everyone working on (or who know of people working on) such 
developments could post information regarding what exactly they are 
changing/upgrading/doing to 2.3a to make an 'international' v2.6.
 
What do others think of everyone 'putting their cards on the table' to enable 
other knowledgeable cypherpunks to help and suggest things?
 
Am I jumping the gun?  Should we just let MIT's v2.6 reach an FTP site 
somewhere outside of the USA and let it slowly (and cautiously) get 
distributed to a small community of cypherpunks leaving the rest incompatible?
 
All of those inside the USA, *PLEASE* get involved with this.  It _is_ 
important!
 
Thankyou for listening.
 

*****************************************************************************
*  Paul Strong                      Fidonet: 2:254/438 (weekly mail check)  * 
*                                                                           * 
*  pauls@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk            Finger for PGP v2.3a public key         * 
*****************************************************************************






Thread