[148742] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [Cryptography] What do we know? (Was 'We cannot trust' ...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Donald Eastlake)
Thu Dec 26 13:51:34 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <52B945C4.5030505@echeque.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:48:34 -0500
To: jamesd@echeque.com
Cc: Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com>,
Cryptography List <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:28 AM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> Not when you are selling to government agencies. If they want a customized
> product, you produce a fork or a skew for that government agency and charge
> them extra.
Large customers, government or otherwise, that know what they are
doing realize that if a custom extension/addition is incorporated in a
product *just for them*, then they will be paying forever for it to be
maintained and included with every future upgrade of the product.
On the other hand, if you can get what you want included in the base
product *for everyone*, then likely it will be maintained and included
in future versions at no cost. So it makes a lot of sense to pay for
what you want to be included in the base product, unless you don't
want it to be available to others. This logic applies whether what you
want included is a great feature or a backdoor.
Thanks,
Donald
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e3e3@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
