From: nobody@shell.portal.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 22:39:24 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: PGP bastardization
Message-ID: <199407150540.WAA12162@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> You may be correct in that Phil Zimmermann has no legal
> recourse, but I counldn't say for sure.  I am more concerned
> with the ethical issues.  What have you called your new
> super-duper pgp?  If you make it abundantly clear that it is
> *your* hack of pgp, and not supported in any way by RSA, MIT, or
> prz, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it.

Isn't it ironic, though, that Phil Zimmerman was the victim of a 
similar accusation by PKP/RSA -- "pirating" code?  IMHO, that's 
also who the person who released this new version really needs to 
worry about.  If they modified PGP 2.3a code, then they're in the 
same boat as PRZ if they distribute it.  The GPL only covers 
PRZ's (and Colin Plumb's) code, not the RSA routines.  Also, I 
wonder whether the RSAREF license on 2.6 is valid for modified 
versions?

Geeez!  If it's just the name, then call this newest version 
"TAP" for "Totally Awesome Privacy", or something similar.  Just 
so the "look and feel" are the same.  Nothing would stop the end 
user from renaming it from TAP.EXE to PGP.EXE, of course... <g>

I can sympathize with PRZ in wanting to protect his "baby" from 
the hackings of "unwashed Philistines" or whatever, but had he 
taken that attitude regarding the original RSA code, PGP might 
never have come about.