From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 10:35:02 PDT
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Subject: Re: PGP bastardization (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199407140628.XAA02433@netcom11.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9407141730.AA11498@fnord.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

    From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
    Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 23:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
    
    The code was released under the GPL.  The names PGP, Pretty Good
    Privacy, and Phil's Pretty Good Software were not.
    
    People can make anything they want out of the code, as long as they 
    also release it under the GPL and call it something else.
    
- From readme.doc:

  PGP is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence

How is it that you come to the conclusion that only the part of PGP
which is the code is covered by GPL and not the part of PGP which is
the name?  Gee, maybe we should refer to all that GPL case law
precedent to resolve this :-)

			Rick

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

iQCVAgUBLiV2MpNR+/jb2ZlNAQG1awQAoxC5lpKVwIfuj0YXBg7RdeT4lMYSyTrg
EFeKBKumiXmpSEqVQQzf1UqRJ5o7azuLhctWrYWkXBzj9c18T1azU5nZKKnhAAGn
FaCs/iFq1hBSAqxSEUkIJVDhgDSrf7WkMh7gh4tm5zfU51uw8goS8aPpay8iCPIL
fYyEd5ViLxM=
=WG2n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----