effects and incompatibilities between GPG1.0.6 and PGP CKT 06
Tue Jul 10 09:56:02 2001
On 09 Jul 2001 00:17:46 +0200, Florian Weimer said:
> Ah, I see. These versions have a questionable legal state.
To say it very mildly.
> It is, of course. It's probably even a registered trademark in quite
> a few counries.
And the reason why GnuPG is not even called gpg.
> PGP 2.3a et al. were relased by 'Phil's Pretty Good Software'.
And it adheres to his interpretation of the GPL.
> Mr. Zimmerman probably sold the trademark together with his other
He did and I assume that he is now a bit sorry that NAI uses the
respected name PGP for a lot of other things which might not be
connceted to privacy at all.
Werner Koch Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur
g10 Code GmbH et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est.
Privacy Solutions -- Augustinus