Faramir wrote: > Well... no... since he chose to don't allow distribution of it (unless > it is in a magazine's CD... but not in a CD without a magazine), I > supposed it was no point asking... after all, it is not even the > installer file, it would be a copy of the installed files...
As a general rule, you can get away with murder as long as you show people that you've done your homework. If you write a courteous note and explain "yes, I understand your general policy is [insert policy here] because [insert reasons here], but I was hoping that since my use is a little different, you might be willing to consider granting me permission." Seriously. Be polite, understand that you're asking him for a favor, don't second-guess someone's decisions, and you can get away with _anything_. :) > Maybe the trees are not allowing me to see the forest... I thought it > would be easier to find a tool for this... since I had heard "there are > several GUIs for gpg". But maybe I should think about this subject in a > different way... maybe use gpg for emails, and sha1 for files... there > are a lot of tools for sha, md5, etc verification... and let advanced > users to verify the signatures using the command console, if they want to. Or say "to hell with it, I'm going to use S/MIME". S/MIME has the major advantage of pretty much every mail client supporting it out-of-the-box. The end users would need to download nothing. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users