From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:38:53 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Richard Stallman on RSA, Zimmermann, crypto
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9606041755.A5503-0100000@well>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Richard's comments below are very much worth reading. Also check out the
following URLs for back fight-censorship messages about the RSA/Zimmermann
conflict... 

MIT's Seth Finkelstein on RSA/Zimmermann history:
  http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=639

Background on RSA's involvement with recent crypto legislation:
  http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=1613
  http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=1614
  http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2282

-Declan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 20:18:05 -0400
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: declan@well.com
Cc: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FW: CWD--Crypto Gets A Nuke (fwd)

As an opponent of Clipper--I debated Dorothy Denning on NPR once--I
was glad to read about the new Japanese encryption chip.

But that chip is not the right solution for most people who want to
use encryption.  For example, I'm considering using digital
signatures.  I don't need the high power that requires special
expensive hardware, and I would rather not have to buy it.  What I
would really like is free software, which I can run on an ordinary PC,
to do the job.

Unfortunately, there isn't any.  RSA Inc. made sure of that.

Zimmermann initially intended to release PGP as free software.  But
RSA Inc threatened him with a patent suit, and forced him to change
the distribution terms.  Now PGP in the US uses RSAREF, which is
restricted by a patent license to non-commercial use only.  In other
words, only hobbyists and academics can use it.  There is a commercial
version which is proprietary software, and apparently not many people
want it badly enough to buy it.

The version of PGP used outside the US is free software, but if you
use it within the US, RSA Inc. can sue you.

This is very bad for people who would like to use PGP.  But it is
worse than that.  It affects the political battle too.

PGP had a chance to create a constituency of Americans who demand the
right to use encryption.  If PGP had been allowed for use in business,
not just by hobbyists, we would have far more Americans who care
enough to fight against Clipper--and they would include businesses
which have the funds to influence legislators.  RSA Inc. prevented
this from happening, and did so for no reason except money.

Bidzos and Rivest would like to present themselves as the defenders of
our freedom to use encryption.  And it is true, they would like us to
be able to use encryption, as long as we are required to pay them for
doing so.  But when they had the choice of letting us use encryption
freely or stamping it out, they chose the latter.

I hope you won't portray them as heroes.