From: nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 03:16:33 +0800
To: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Can't touch this, ugly Americans! (PGP License file)
In-Reply-To: <199708111344.JAA24033@homeport.org>
Message-ID: <97Aug11.145941edt.32258@brickwall.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Adam Shostack wrote:

> First off, congratulations and thanks to Stale and everyone else for
> scanning in the source to PGP5.0i (http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/)
> 
> However, theres an ugly problem with the license.
> (http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/pgp50i-license.txt)
> 
> In Section 1.c.(d), permission is given to port PGP to other
> platforms.  However, permission to distribute those ports is
> explicitly denied.
> 
> Could the license be modified to allow people who port the software to
> redisctribute ports?  There is enough FUD about using PGP without PGP,
> Inc contributing to that by overly tight licensing.
> 
> Adam

Or what do you do about bugs?  It mentions corrections, but not who to
send them to.

On DEC Alpha/axp under Linux, include/pgpUsuals.h has a test for a big
ULONG_MAX that defines HAVE64 as 1 on 64 bit machines like the alpha

But the very next test has #ifndef HAVE64 where there is a typedef for
word64, which won't happen.  But if HAVE64 is 1, in pgpMD5.c it will
really want word64 defined or it will bomb. 

Something is wrong, but if I copy the typedef, it seems to get further
(compiling as we speak - the old UDBs aren't the fastest alphas).

Now, where should I send this information or the patch?

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---