From: “Jim Sewell” <jims@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f9161800d41791e8cd4b793541cf7640cc3e4458a895992faf5d72f7a34483b3
Message ID: <9407141343.AA02457@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>
Reply To: <199407140333.UAA22254@jobe.shell.portal.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-14 13:43:37 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 06:43:37 PDT
From: "Jim Sewell" <jims@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 06:43:37 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: PGP bastardization
In-Reply-To: <199407140333.UAA22254@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <9407141343.AA02457@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
<In mail nobody@shell.portal.com said:>
>
> What are [prz's] 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>
The issue is not one of copyrights as much as of reputation. If
people believe that prz is a lousy security consultant as a result
of irresponsible hacks made on PGP then his reputation has been
damaged and therefore he is entitled to restitution.
Note: I'm not implying that Tom's hacks are irresponsible since
I've not seen them. Simply that if they are then prz has
right to 'make a case'
Jim
--
Tantalus Inc. Jim Sewell Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ
P.O. Box 2310 Programmer Internet: jims@mpgn.com
Key West, FL 33045 C-Unix-PC Compu$erve: 71061,1027
(305)293-8100 PGP via email on request.
1K-bit Fingerprint: 8E 14 68 90 37 87 EF B3 C4 CF CD 9A 3E F9 4A 73
Return to July 1994
Return to “nobody@shell.portal.com”