From: Jeff Barber <jeffb@sware.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 94 06:46:35 PDT
To: pauls@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk (Paul "K." Strong)
Subject: Re: creating a v2.6 of PGP for the REST of us!
In-Reply-To: <24363.9405262031@lt1.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk.>
Message-ID: <9405271259.AA14586@wombat.sware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>Maybe instead of many people producing different patches (some of which will 
>be good and some bad) a new version (labelled as v2.6euro?) should be 
>released from outside the USA that is derived from 2.3a code; therefore 
>producing a version that is no different in _appearance_ to MIT's v2.6. 

>                  Also, some ftp sites and bulletin boards outside the USA
>don't like carrying software that was illegally exported.  A special non-USA 
>version of 2.6 would allow everyone to be happy and compatible.

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?


-- Jeff