🚀 go-pugleaf

Bill Stewart corrects my understanding of PGP and IDEA (thanks), which
suggests that troubles for possession and/or use of PGP2.x in the U.S.
can also come from the Munitions Act since PGP is based on an import
of the IDEA implementation, rather than domestic coding of the IDEA
algorithm.

If my understanding is now accurate that PGP2.x violates both the
Munitions Act and PKP's patents, and that this violation is occasioned
not just by use but also by possession in the U.S., then it would seem
prudent to get it off one's U.S. computers and any U.S. net
sites--Internet, Usenet, Fidonet, anynet. Presence on a bulletin board
system may be just what someone needs to close down that system.

As for the argument that some make that "you" will probably neither get
caught nor prosecuted for this illegality, the ethics of that position
are open to the most serious questions (assuming my understanding
of the underlying situation is accurate).

Finally, given my understanding, the notion that if it's uploaded all
over the place, what can "they" do seems to betray a lack of both
realism and ethics. Try the argument that if lots of people take
cocaine, what can "they" do?  to see this.

The proposal to produce a de novo version here in the U.S., based on
the IDEA algorithm (if published and the IDEA folks permit it), and
RSAREF (assuming RSA will license RSAREF for PGP), in contrast seems
both ethical and legal, if I understand this correctly.

Just a passing point on the latter paragraph--people shouldn't count
their RSAREFs 'til they're hatched. RSA still owns RSAREF, and though
they've licensed it, with a specific associated agreeement, for ripem,
that doesn't mean they HAVE to license it for a future PGP. Whoever is
doing this "legal PGP" project should check with Jim Bidzos of RSA
at their earliest opportunity (jim@rsa.com).

For completeness and to acknowledge a particular position (with which
I disagree), some feel that it's absurd to prevent use of something
here that's widespread in Europe, and are willing to take a chance in
order to press that. Others feel that PKP's patents are over-broad and
are willing to confront on that issue. That's got to be an individual
and conscious choice, which should be made clear to others, so nobody
gets or uses PGP under the impression it's "o.k." My own position is
that if one thinks a law or situation is incorrect, one moves to get
it changed, if possible. One does not take the law into one's own
hands. One particularly doesn't take innocent bystanders down with
one.

Any more bidding on this one before I conclude I now understand it?