<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