From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 17:18:53 PDT
To: "James E. Riggs" <venom@kaos.aum.edu>
Subject: Re: PGP modifications
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9407141545.A12778-0100000@kaos>
Message-ID: <9407150017.AA19662@fnord.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

    Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 15:52:54 -0500 (CDT)
    From: "James E. Riggs" <venom@kaos.aum.edu>
    
    I don't think that he can stop him from making any modifications
    to PGP, but I think that he can stop him from using the name PGP
    on it.  I think that he has every right to do this.

Well, perhaps every right except for a legal right.

Of course, as I mentioned somewhat obtusely earlier, there's no
precedent to work from, but (a version of) PGP was released under the
terms of the GPL.  Not "everything but the name of PGP" or "just the
code of PGP".  PGP is GPLed and Tom is legally free to bastardize it
and continue to call it PGP based on the GPL.

FWIW, the guy who developed the GPL believes that people who have
taken GNU Emacs and done things to it which are unacceptable to him --
the the schism -- are completely free to use the name GNU Emacs.
Because they are derivative works of GNU Emacs and GNU Emacs is GPLed,
they are in his words "by definition" GNU Emacs.

Tom's bastardization is similarly "by definition" PGP.  It's
intentional anarchy and I think that it's a Good Thing, despite the
fact I support Phil's right to call it snake oil (and I tend to agree
with him).

			Rick

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAgUBLiXVrZNR+/jb2ZlNAQFkvAQAsWhP27vQxhgd5aK4WdWToOO1yftyyZ6S
EYCabqSKHfz4tZY046wnM0L08YbH5C9rttGtW7Vk44ehv96jmI7yJiAZTrT03jiE
J1xi+m7Gx+i0zWbEW+k1/bTA6IWQsNaptgEOE9sJtacnvBnMXbkTb9TGuhckMMES
JrxMBzMb5wo=
=iK3G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----