3 ms·

I don't like that this is piggybacking on the recognizable name of an open standard and not-for-profit software while being considerably less open (Where's the

I don't like that this is piggybacking on the recognizable name of an open standard and not-for-profit software while being considerably less open (Where's the RFC? Where's the source code?) and being for-profit. This is a bit like calling your company "Red Cross Pharmaceuticals" despite not being affiliated with them.

j-bos 4y ago
That's a neat metaphor.
thayne 4y ago
I'm pretty sure the original PGP program was (and maybe still is?) a for-profit product.
- hampereddustbin 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure you shouldn't try to piggyback off of a for-profit company's name either. In fact atleast over here in Finland naming one's company is specifically reviewed by the patent and registry bureau to make sure it doesen't resemble any existing companies. It costs around 100-450€ and is mandatory for any new company
- chmod775 4y ago
  Not as far as I know: > It was this bill that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year [1991] https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html > It was on this day in 1991 that I sent the first release of PGP to a couple of my friends for uploading to the Internet. First, I sent it to Allan Hoeltje, who posted it to Peacenet, an ISP that specialized in grassroots political organizations, mainly in the peace movement. [...] Then, I uploaded it to Kelly Goen, who proceeded to upload it to a Usenet newsgroup that specialized in distributing source code. https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/news/PGP_10thAnniversary.html https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/news/PGP_10thAnniversary.h... Symantec later bought it and things changed, but thanks to there being an open standard (OpenPGP) and RFCs, people can and did write compatible software. With varying degrees of compatibility, admittedly.

3 ms·

I don't like that this is piggybacking on the recognizable name of an open standard and not-for-profit software while being considerably less open (Where's the

by chmod775 4y ago

j-bos 4y ago
That's a neat metaphor.
thayne 4y ago
I'm pretty sure the original PGP program was (and maybe still is?) a for-profit product.
- hampereddustbin 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure you shouldn't try to piggyback off of a for-profit company's name either. In fact atleast over here in Finland naming one's company is specifically reviewed by the patent and registry bureau to make sure it doesen't resemble any existing companies. It costs around 100-450€ and is mandatory for any new company
- chmod775 4y ago
  Not as far as I know: > It was this bill that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year [1991] https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html > It was on this day in 1991 that I sent the first release of PGP to a couple of my friends for uploading to the Internet. First, I sent it to Allan Hoeltje, who posted it to Peacenet, an ISP that specialized in grassroots political organizations, mainly in the peace movement. [...] Then, I uploaded it to Kelly Goen, who proceeded to upload it to a Usenet newsgroup that specialized in distributing source code. https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/news/PGP_10thAnniversary.html https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/news/PGP_10thAnniversary.h... Symantec later bought it and things changed, but thanks to there being an open standard (OpenPGP) and RFCs, people can and did write compatible software. With varying degrees of compatibility, admittedly.