Re: PGP bastardization

["Jim Sewell" <jims@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>]

<In mail nobody@shell.portal.com said:>
> 
> What are [prz's] LEGAL grounds for attempting to retain "editorial 
> control" over PGP, as commendable as your desire to maintain its 
> integrity undoubtedly is?  The notice distributed with PGP itself 
> seems to say otherwise -- only that modifications must also be 
> freely distributable.  So why CC: your letter to what appears to 
> be a legal firm?  Does the legal term "in terrorem" apply here? <g>

	The issue is not one of copyrights as much as of reputation.  If
	people believe that prz is a lousy security consultant as a result
	of irresponsible hacks made on PGP then his reputation has been
	damaged and therefore he is entitled to restitution.  

	Note:  I'm not implying that Tom's hacks are irresponsible since 
		   I've not seen them.  Simply that if they are then prz has
		   right to 'make a case'

	Jim
-- 
 Tantalus Inc.          Jim Sewell      Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ
 P.O. Box 2310          Programmer           Internet: jims@mpgn.com
 Key West, FL 33045     C-Unix-PC          Compu$erve: 71061,1027
 (305)293-8100                            PGP via email on request. 
 1K-bit Fingerprint: 8E 14 68 90 37 87 EF B3  C4 CF CD 9A 3E F9 4A 73