-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Was Sun, 22 Oct 2006, at 15:53:11 +0200,
when Werner Koch wrote:
> Frankly, we are not very keen to do that because with most commonly
> used OSes you need to dive deeply into that OS. After all it is a
> matter of paying ;-).
Every work should be paid, after the merits, there is no any question
about it.
> It would be interesting to write an encrypted file system server for a
> modern OS design. However I doubt that there is yet enough commercial
> interest to cover the cost.
Well, commercial interest obviously exists, otherwise the "modern" PGP
wouldn't sell even a piece of their...product, no?
Then, there are many variants of licences of the very same product,
depending, for instance, on the types of users. More serious
corporations, companies, governmental organizations and similar will
surely rather pay for a GnuPG than for a modern PGP, particularly with
the current tendency of elimination of proverbially insecure OSs from
significant areas and replace them by more reliable, "transparent" and
stable ones.
Where would be a problem to have a GnuPG licence for them, and a GnuPG
licence for a say "personal use" (as it is practised for instance by
manufacturers of anti virus software - the entire, global, environment
becomes safer and better, and including all sorts of commercial
activities as well)?
I have myself said on one occasion that if by a chance GnuPG were not
freeware, I would indeed pay for it, some reasonable price of course,
say errrmmm, $30, US ?-) rather than to use any other software in this
category, even if they were not only freware but if they would pay me
for this, seriously, and I meant it. As things stand, right in this
moment, this is most quality software in this category, still, despite
the recent discrete signs of tendency of giving up under the non-FSF
subtle pressure. (-; Its huge advantage is, besides, its "transparency"
and that it can be modified, quite legitimately, to suit user's specific
needs.
Therefore, GnuPG has a real and strong potential to be a commercial
software as well. It just depends on how it will be presented (and of
course of its capacity to preserve and maintain its independence).
The very same stands then for a potential GPGDisk.
I doubt that for instance the governments (or any more serious self
respecting company) that switch to safer systems are not aware of the
difference between say GnuPG and modern PGP. No chance. (-; If they
switch to these system then it means that they think. If they think then
they know the difference. They don't ask ranters and twitching faces for
expert opinion. (-:
By the way, is it possible to make this hypothetical GPGDisk in a way
that it could make different file systems in one "container", say one
container with three partitions: minix, ext2, win32/ntfs and so? Or even
each individual container with different file system, with no partitions
within?
- - --
Mica
~~~ For personal mail please use my address as it is *exactly* given
in my "From" field, otherwise it will not reach me. ~~~
GPG keys/docs/software at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/
http://tronogi.tripod.com/pgp/pgpkeys/
Life therefore is not a vision of a fool you are obliged to get
accustomed to, and to live after the rules of someone's autogenous
nightmare and cerebral defect. (Hammer von Troll, ch. "Doctrine of the
Rotten Plank", from "The Book of the Joy")
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6-svn-4298 <>o<> tiger192 (Cygwin/MinGW32)
iQEVAwUBRT7IWLSpHvHEUtv8AQg0uwf9HwqDPH//r/rfzI36Ab3+F3oYxCTV4oUk
ZVB1/z6+GRbmGHL7KcP1L24awRQ9BkCRyLseCfaXe9yMLIdIbybTpJBqolSDHu5y
WR8K/Mt/Cz/3cPAyDELNFcnoXbLoLGCxKCndv9oLgYHD/w/0vOXGDiq5efsX7O3e
dEU0KJo/gOdhnX+Hvi8oYTt8hRPp8u93xvcLIbvS24Ekm0/GFBY3qLeCj9gCforG
gmjjpKe5/FP0yXZo6HVttJPORfWO5K3ZOvYF1bKwXe4gNID1e4L9c6gMNZPUetfa
UwzM6sWFbR8KHpHmYnhiPMFQAVU0VsXQVFlA11Z6vEGdX2AADOixqw==
=ahq+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
