PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?

[Robert A. Hayden]

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          <=> hayden at krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-             <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /   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+(*)