Post #2152936
2026-04-24 22:36 UTC
@dvzrv @freepg
*sigh* this isn't good.
I recall days in the late 90s when i had to exchange e-mails with pgp users and had to faff about with forced v3 signatures in my .gnupg.conf file now it looks like gnupg wants me to go through more pain.....
On a point of order, I really don't like the use of the term 'propriety formats' when the code is GPL The devs need to give their heads a wobble.
Replies (1)
-
@dvzrv@chaos.social 2026-04-25 07:55
@gregsie @freepg it's indeed a mess and quite terrible for other implementers and all users of OpenPGP. I agree about the somewhat ambiguous term "proprietary" in this context. It is not meant as "proprietary software" (antonym of "free software"), but as "owned solely by GnuPG" (see e.g. 2 in https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/proprietary). Maybe you have an improvement suggestion for a spec/a set of features "developed by a single person without effective oversight or a genuine desire to collaborate"?