🚀 go-pugleaf

Uri posts a distorted message, about which he should know better since he
was a RIPEM beta tester.

"I have to disappoint you: the final RSAREF license makes it clear,
that in order to access it in any way other than the published
interface, you need a prior permission from PKP. And since
the set of published interfaces is too poor, PGP can't
be rewritten to use it, nor any decent program."

False and misleading. RSA has already given permission to two programs
to modify the interface, RIPEM and one other, and has said that though
they want to be asked, they won't deny further reasonable requests.

Until uri finds them denying a request those without a chip on their
shoulder would find reasonable, he is simply continuing his biased
attacks on RSA without evidence.

I see no reason a rewritten U.S. PGP would be denied approval to modify
RSAREF if they ask politely and with clean hands. I define clean
hands as asking in a non-inflammatory way that doesn't arouse bad
historical memories. For example, a request for a permission for
a program called something other than PGP, but which is PGP file
and protocol compatible, from someone other than Phil Zimmerman
would be clearly non-inflammatory. That's not to say they wouldn't
honor a request from Phil, but there are degrees of red flags
here.

If one's objective is to get a "legal" U.S. version of PGP using
RSAREF, one will proceed in one way. If one's objective is to
make RSA wrong, one will proceed in a different way.

I am not interested in a discussion whose purpose is to make
RSA wrong. What I am interested in is seeing a version of PGP
in the U.S. that clearly doesn't violate either RSA's patents,
or the Munitions Act and its implementing regulations.

This has never been a civil rights issue for me, as it seems to
be for some others. It has been a practical issue of getting
the result without violating the law and patents as they are
both claimed to be. I'll let others fight their issue of
claiming the patent isn't valid and challenging it, or
trying to get the Munitions Act changed. That's not my issue
since my personal view is that the patents ARE valid, and that
the Munitions Act and implementing regulations are reasonable
and proper unless someone else can convince Congress or the
courts to change.

-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM key on server