effects and incompatibilities between GPG1.0.6 and PGP CKT 06
Tue Jul 10 23:44:01 2001
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Graham wrote:
> > So why is he using the PGP trademark? This is quite confusing.
> The Cyber Knights Templar (CKT) builds have been produced with NAI's
> knowledge and I assume their permission from PGP 5.x and they even
> have a version of PGP 2.6.x.
That assumption is false.
Note that I no longer work for NAI, and do not speak for them (nor have I
ever, but it is my understanding that Imad has *no* permission from NAI to
do what he has done.
Yes, clearly, NAI is aware of its existance, especially the problems it
> They take the NAI published source code and recompile it with
> enhancements. In fact, this is what happened with virtually all
> international versions of PGP, so I would now guess that PGP is a
> generic term. Surely the trademark applies to the various flavours of
> NAI PGP?
PGP is not a generic term.
> As far as PGP 6.5.8ckt Build 6 is concerned, it is free for private
> use, comes with an enhanced version of PGPdisk, and a version of
> Samopal's PGP-ICQ that is linked to the binary of the build AND full
> source code has been issued. It runs faster than the old NAI PGP
> 6.5.8, is compatible with GnuPG keys (which the old NAI PGP was not)
> and most of all, it is supported, whereas the NAI version has been
> abandoned by NAI.
If I were you, I would pay for an audit of this code before you trusted
it. That's all I'm willing to say at this point.