effects and incompatibilities between GPG1.0.6 and PGP CKT 06

Florian Weimer fw@deneb.enyo.de
Mon Jul 9 00:06:04 2001

Johan Wevers <johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl> writes:

> Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> Attention: It is the PGP CKT version from Imad R. Faiad, not the NAI PGP.
>> So why is he using the PGP trademark? This is quite confusing.
> The CKT (Cyber Knights Templar) pgp versions are based on the released NAI
> sourcecode,
Ah, I see. These versions have a questionable legal state. Personally, I recommend against using them.
> I don't know if and how the name "pgp" is trademarked;
It is, of course. It's probably even a registered trademark in quite a few counries.
> but since there are GPL programs like pgp 2.3a using that name
> before any company used it I'm not sure if NAI can claim explusive
> rights.
PGP 2.3a et al. were relased by 'Phil's Pretty Good Software'. Mr. Zimmerman probably sold the trademark together with his other rights.
> Fact is that they don't seem to go after all those altered versions.
But nobody can be sure that they won't in the future.
> And this is not exclusive for pgp; I have some changes I apply to
> each new version of gpg I use as well.
Well, GnuPG is free software, so you are certainly allowed to do that. In contrast, NAI explicitly forbids to distribute modified versions.