🚀 go-pugleaf

PKP is not in the business of selling individual end user licenses thus
it should be no surprise that they have no desire to do so for PGP.
Their business is selling licenses to manufacturers of hardware and
software.  They would, I am sure, be happy to sell a license to Phil
but I doubt Phil would want to pay the royalty (quite modest as you
would know if you have ever actually inquired) for each of the users of
his package.

Now, if Phil had decided at the start to sell his package, approached
PKP for a license and been refused or given prohibitive terms there
might be something here to wonder about but at this point that is
hypothetical.  Even if they had, there can be ethical business
reasons for doing so based on agreements with other competing
licensees.  That's business.

I still don't like that the public must purchase rights to use work
done by tax-exempt, non-profit (I'm getting more specific here) groups
like MIT and Stanford funded signifigantly by public taxes but that's
reality at the moment and another issue.

Bob

-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts


               PGP 1.0 or 2.0 public key available on request.