1995-12-19 - Re: revised time quantization package (Unix & WIN32) available

Header Data

From: cpunk@remail.ecafe.org (ECafe Anonymous Remailer)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 3e41e21bdcbeb874baa05ef7c387007d139107748ce794a4a58b9a5dc9cb285e
Message ID: <199512192232.WAA18554@pangaea.ang.ecafe.org>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-12-19 22:30:34 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 19 Dec 95 14:30:34 PST

Raw message

From: cpunk@remail.ecafe.org (ECafe Anonymous Remailer)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 95 14:30:34 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: revised time quantization package (Unix & WIN32) available
Message-ID: <199512192232.WAA18554@pangaea.ang.ecafe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


AT&T Spokesman Matt Blaze writes:
blah blah
>There are (basically) no restrictions on the use or distribution
>of the (very simple) code.

This is simply untrue. Read the fine print in the file. Use this code
and you owe them big. They'll "reach out and touch" you big time.
If they were serious, they'd gpl it.

>Get it from:
>	ftp://research.att.com/dist/mab/quantize.shar
>
>The quantize package is also part of Jack Lacy's cryptolib package
>(watch this space for details).

I don't understand why this group continues to tolerate these blatently
commercial messages from att (and netscape.) (The message is
really just an ad for the cryptolib product, as it says). I've also said
this b4 but I'll say it again: why would anyone in their right mind trust
binary code from att after the clipper fiasco.

And why do we tolerate Jeff Weinstein and Mat Blaze calling themselves
cypherpunks, when they are so clearly just working us for their
corporate interests? I wonder how much they get paid to monitor this
list?







Thread