It means that PKP could choose not to enforce against PGP (or any other freeware program) without losing any rights to enforce against others.
This is correct as stated. I don't think that loss of patent is a motivation, though, for the suppression of PGP. I think it is perceived to cut into licensing revenues. PKP is a partnership of MIT, Stanford, RSADSI, and Cylink. Those first two academic institutions are out to make money, plain and simple, from their patent portfolio. They are large corporations and behave like such. The other two companies are smaller and are more accessible, but also have investors and a default requirement to make money for their shareholders. Any lobbying for better licensing practice needs to extend beyond just Jim Bidzos to the owners of all these companies. I presume that Stanford and MIT both have patent licensing offices, and that each also has a representative assigned to a particular patent account. It would be extremely beneficial to know the names of these people. They may be able to speak publicly where PKP is bound by confidentiality agreements; PKP, remember, is in a subordinate position with respect to its owners. List of principals and investors in RSADSI and Cylink would also be useful. Eric