From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 16 May 94 18:58:32 PDT
To: MIKEINGLE@delphi.com (Mike Ingle)
Subject: Re: Fixing pgp 2.6
In-Reply-To: <01HCF1L2VLIQ935JK8@delphi.com>
Message-ID: <199405170158.AA25971@access1.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> >In order  to   fully protect  RSADSI's intellectual  property  rights in
> >public-key technology, PGP 2.6 will be designed so  that the messages it
> >creates after September 1,  1994 will be  unreadable by earlier versions
> >of PGP that infringe patents licensed exclusively to Public Key Partners
> >by MIT and Stanford University. PGP 2.6 will continue to be able to read
> >messages generated by those earlier versions.
> 
> So it will produce readable messages before Sept 1, 1994? Then there must
> be an if somewhere in the program to check the date. That should be fix-
> able with a patch of a few bytes to the object code. The best way to
> uncripple it would be to distribute a small .exe program which patches
> your version of PGP in place. Also include the source for the .exe
> so nobody thinks it does anything evil. We are being divided and conquered.
> If PGP 2.6 succeeds, our goal of a worldwide strong crypto standard is dead.
> This needs to be stopped. 

As annoyed with the 2.5-2.6 releases as I have been, (and I hate to say I 
told you so... but I told you so...) Mr. Ingle turned on something of a 
light in my head.

What happens if we read between the lines?

Consider:

> >In order  to   fully protect  RSADSI's intellectual  property  rights in
> >public-key technology....

I'm not real confident in the integrity of those involved anymore, nor am 
I confident that they have the interests of the user at heart, but look 
at what this might say....

Especially with the next clause,

> >PGP 2.6 will be designed so  that the messages it
> >creates after September 1,  1994 will be  unreadable by earlier versions
> >of PGP

Could it be that they EXPECT to have it changed, and don't care, but 
still need to protect intellectual property rights.  Keep up 
"appearances" so to speak?

Someone should examine the legal problems that might be involved in 
patching and making available the modified code.  If it's anything like 
the old license, you can do what you like provided you send notice of 
your change and waive rights to it.

I would look into it myself, but I don't know much about the license, nor 
can I spend the time in the next few months.



> 
> --- Mike
> 


-uni- (Dark)

-- 
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!