commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject Re: [PGP] choose another name?
Date Thu, 19 May 2005 07:27:03 GMT
robert burrell donkin wrote:

>but i do have some concerns about the name
Yes, I've been thinking about it too.

>phil zimmermann's pretty good privacy program is almost universally
>abbreviated to pgp. the name commons-pgp is not only close to a related
>commercial product but the term PGP is plastered all over our
>communications. i wonder whether it might be better to adopt another
>name now (at this early stage) which doesn't carry the risk difficulties
>later (for example: commons-openpgp, commons-crypt, commons-sign etc).
Just to fill in on the original discussion:

    > commons-signing?

    Depends on what we intend to do there.  commons-pgp or even
    commons-openpgp if we want to stick with PGP might be better (we may
    include support for encryption and decryption as well, that's why I
    don't like "signing").

I also though openPGP was an implementation rather than a spec, so maybe
going straight to "commons-crypto" is the best. That gives us scope to
go into encrypt/decrypt as well as signatures and to use other algorithms.

I'd expect generally to just use JCE for this, but it appears some of
the PGP functions aren't exposed through that - so this API can expose
those things. I guess this should be one of the goals - not to just
reproduce functionality that could otherwise be done via JCE.

- Brett

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message