effects and incompatibilities between GPG1.0.6 and PGP CKT 06
Mon Jul 9 00:06:04 2001
Johan Wevers <email@example.com> 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
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
PGP 2.3a et al. were relased by 'Phil's Pretty Good Software'.
Mr. Zimmerman probably sold the trademark together with his other
> 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.