[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
On Tue, 24 May 1994, Russell Nelson wrote:
> So maybe what we (the c'punk community) need to do is maintain
> parallel versions of PGP (ick), one which continues to use 100% GPL'ed
> code, and another which uses RSAREF to stay legal.
I may be foolish, but...
What if (the cypherpunk community) comes out with a secure program that
doesn't rely on RSAREF? Can it be done?
NOTE: I very likely don't know what I'm talking about.
____ Robert A. Hayden <=> [email protected]
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)