From: nobody@shell.portal.com
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 94 20:32:33 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: PGP bastardization
Message-ID: <199407140333.UAA22254@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Philip Zimmermann <prz@acm.org> wrote:

> Accordingly, I do not approve of anyone modifying the cryptographic
> characteristics of PGP.  PGP and Pretty Good Privacy are my trademarks,
> and their good name is trusted the world over because of the care that 
> I have exercised in selecting its algorithms.

[comments deleted]

> cc:  Curtis Karnow
>      Landels, Ripley, and Diamond

My copy of PGP (v2.3a) came with the following notice:

>	   Pretty Good Privacy version 2.3a - READ ME FIRST
>			Notes by Perry Metzger
>		    Edited for 2.3a by Colin Plumb

[intervening material deleted]

> PGP is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public 
> Licence, a copy of which is included.  In brief, this states that 
> PGP is freely distributable, subject only to the condition that 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> if you make a modified version and choose to distribute it, you 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> must make it freely distributable as well.  See the file COPYING 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> for details.

What are your LEGAL grounds for attempting to retain "editorial 
control" over PGP, as commendable as your desire to maintain its 
integrity undoubtedly is?  The notice distributed with PGP itself 
seems to say otherwise -- only that modifications must also be 
freely distributable.  So why CC: your letter to what appears to 
be a legal firm?  Does the legal term "in terrorem" apply here? <g>