🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1992Dec23.222550.18158@netcom.com>, by strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight):
[quoting me:]
> "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.
> 
> False and misleading. 

Will then YOU, a home-brew lawyer, interpret for me, what
item 2.d means? 

> 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
        ^^^ Doesn't David know, that first names
	are capitalized, at least by those who have manners?
> shoulder would find reasonable, he is simply continuing his biased
> attacks on RSA without evidence.

Well, my asking for permissions to use four of internal
routines directly was sent to Mr. Bidzos yesterday.
When/if he responds - I'lllet you all know.

[Yes, I admit: I rather dislike PKP. And you, Mr. D.S.]

> 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.

In one word - manure.

> 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.

Again, I dislike RSADSI, but I will publicly apologize here,
if they will give me positive answer. Basically I asked for
three things from Mr. Bidzos:
	1) Permission to use different DES code (with longer
	   key - one realizes, that diff.cryptanalysis isn't
	   practical threat, while exhaustive key search is).

	2) Permission to call four internal routines from the
	   library "rsaref.a" (routines, which perform RSA
	   algorithm).

	3) Permission to add my own implementation of IDEA to
	   RSAREF.

[I expect no objections for 3, probably OK for 1, and likely
 a no-go for 2. Anybody wanna bet? :-]

I'll be happy to be proven wrong, and thus to contribute my
code/work to RSAREF/RIPEM. Condition 2 is a-must for it.

> 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.

For this either 2.d from RSAREF license must go away, or PKP
must allow somebody (not necessariyl me :-) to access those
four nice routines. It's as simple as that. IDEA is easier
to write, than even to pick a fight with you. (:-)

> David Sternlight
> RIPEM key on server

Uri Blumenthal
RIPEM key wherever you can get it from (:-) [including server]
Any other crypto key - by mutual agreement with my prior permission (:-).
<Disclaimer> I disclaim EVERYTHING. Can I go now? (:-)
-- 
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>	"Hey, bosun! Turn that ****ing stern light off!"