🚀 go-pugleaf

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

> 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.

That's actually a good idea. Instead of discussing what RSA/PKP would
or would not do, could somebody (you?) ask that whether they will
allow the above? If somebody does it, could you please post the
results here?

> 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,

That would probably be in th interest of all US citizens, so maybe
some of them should really ask...

Regards,
Vesselin
-- 
Vesselin Vladimirov Bontchev          Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Tel.:+49-40-54715-224, Fax: +49-40-54715-226      Fachbereich Informatik - AGN
< PGP 2.1 public key available on request. > Vogt-Koelln-Strasse 30, rm. 107 C
e-mail: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de    D-2000 Hamburg 54, Germany