Subject: Re: Further deprecating PGP2

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:07:18 +1300

Werner Koch <[email-masked]> writes:

>Implementing IDEA is trivial but as it is now, it is not possible to use any
>software without paying royalities to Ascom.

I've been using it for years without paying royalties to Ascom, and so has
most of the rest of the PGP-using world.  It's only if you're selling it for
more than $10K (from memory) that you need to talk to Ascom.

Peter.

---

From: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 02:36:48 -0500

> more than $10K (from memory) that you need to talk to Ascom.

That would have had to be non-commercial use then[*]. Unfortunately (at 
least) people who run a business are considered commercial users and 
required to pay a licensing fee to the IDEA patent holder. This has 
nothing to do with the revenue you make off selling PGP software.

Unless things have changed of late, Werner's argument still holds. I'd 
add that a standard cannot be considered truly open when it is 
patent-encumbered. (Encumbered meaning that you need to pay for the 
patent license. CAST-5 obviously is not encumbered in this context.)

Please deprecate any and all uses of IDEA. And while we're at it, let's 
make the standard as lean as possible to increase the chances of 
interoperability. Another IPsec debacle should be avoided. (Though I 
have to admit that OpenPGP is easier to deploy than IPsec ;-p)

Cheers,
-J

[*] I mean, civil disobedience is encouraged, but hardly realistic for
     most commercial users.

---

From: "Michael H. Warfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:37:46 -0500

> more than $10K (from memory) that you need to talk to Ascom.

	Actually, it's far worse that this.  I exchanged some E-Mail with
Richard Strab, the CEO of MediaCrypt, (the license vendor for Ascom) and
he made it quite clear that their definition of "commercial users" included
any and all non-profit organizations and anyone who was not using it for
personal individual use (and even personal use was not acceptable if you
were using it to communication with a "commercial" entity, even if that
entity was a non-profit professional organization or your church or your
school).  If you root around MediaCrypt's site you eventually find their
draconian definition of what they feel constitutes commercial and
non-commercial and, for the life of me, I can't find much that they
CAN'T construe to be commercial and demand royalties.  You end up looking
for a really tiny needle (non-commercial) in a really broad and hazy
haystack (commercial).

	From what I understand exchanging mail with some of my professional
counterparts at some universities, a number of universities already have
blanket licenses negotiated and paid for.  Their use is covered, NOT because
it's non-commercial but, because they already paid for their organization's
license.

> Peter.

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  [email-masked]
  /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/       |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

---

From: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:13:42 -0500

> it's non-commercial but, because they already paid for their 

Thanks for the information. This was my understanding too. All of the 
non-exempt entities listed above will have to pay money to read 
IDEA-encrypted OpenPGP messages. Or, in fact to interoperate with PGP2 
applications in general IIANM.

As it stands, OpenPGP implementors are urged[*] to support this 
outdated and non-royalty-free message format. Yet nobody should be 
urged to perpetuate patent encumbered software if there is a gratis 
(GnuPG) and fully functional (more secure even) alternative.

Getting OpenPGP adopted and used is plenty difficult enough as is. 
Instead of insisting that the status quo be maintained we should 
concentrate on removing any and all barriers to wider spread adoption. 
Making sure that OpenPGP is completely royalty free is one thing that 
helps. Removing complexity from the standard is another approach.

I want to be able to say "Send me an OpenPGP message!" *AND* be legally 
allowed to decrypt whatever OpenPGP message I am sent. I don't have the 
luxury of a university buying me a blanket license with taxpayer money. 
I don't have a luxury of being paid and still be considered a 
non-commercial entity.

Labeling support for IDEA messages RECOMMENDED[*] as is the case now 
sends the wrong message to implementors. Marking IDEA messages 
OPTIONAL[**] (with "MAY") avoids this trap. And stating that IDEA 
messages SHOULD NOT be sent ensures that all alternatives will be tried 
first before the application falls back to IDEA.

Cheers,
-J

[*] "SHOULD: This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
     may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
     particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
     carefully weighed before choosing a different course."

[**] "MAY: This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
      truly optional..."

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 16:46:33 -0800

> (GnuPG) and fully functional (more secure even) alternative.

In spite of the fact that I support deprecating all PGP 2 features,
including IDEA, I think that "SHOULD" means "urge" is a bit strong.

My informal interpretation of SHOULD is that if you just picked up the
standard and are implementing from it, do the SHOULDs unless you know why.
If you run into something like a patent issue, then you know why it's a
SHOULD (as opposed to a MUST or MAY).

A further bit of cleverness on a developer's part is to note that if
something is a SHOULD, there's probably a controversy around it -- some
reason it's not a MUST, and some reason it's not a MAY. It's either
something people would like to get rid of but can't, or some sizable
minority is enthusiastic about, and couldn't get enough support to make it a
requirement.

Now beyond this, I agree with the vast majority of what Jeroen has said. In
PGP, we have effectively deprecated V3 keys since 2001. V3 keys are called
"Legacy RSA keys" and you have to do "Expert" key generation to get one.
There are also warnings that pop up when you create one.

    Jon