diff --git a/20-Readme/20-Readme.md b/20-Readme/20-Readme.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1d6d7a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/20-Readme/20-Readme.md @@ -0,0 +1,186 @@ +20. README + + 20.1. copyright + THE CYPHERNOMICON: Cypherpunks FAQ and More, Version 0.666, + 1994-09-10, Copyright Timothy C. May. All rights reserved. + See the detailed disclaimer. Use short sections under "fair + use" provisions, with appropriate credit, but don't put your + name on my words. + + 20.2. README--BRIEF VERSION + 20.2.1. Copyright Timothy C. May. All rights reserved. For what it's + worth. + 20.2.2. Apologies in advance for the mix of styles (outline, bullet, + text, essays), for fragments and incomplete sections. This + FAQ is already much too long and detailed, and writing + suitable connective material, introductions, summaries, etc. + is not in the cards anytime soon. Go with the flow, use your + text searching tools, and deal with it. + 20.2.3. Substantive corrections welcome, quibbles less welcome, and + ideological debate even less welcome. Corrections to outdated + information, especially on pointers to information, will be + most appreciated. + + 20.3. Copyright Comments + 20.3.1. It may seem illogical for a Cypherpunk to assert some kind of + copyright. Perhaps. But my main concern is the ease with + which people can relabel documents as their own, sometimes + after only adding a few words here and there. + 20.3.2. Yes, I used the words of others in places, to make points + better than I felt my own words would, to save time, and to + give readers a different voice speaking on issues. I have + credited quotes with a "[Joe Foobar, place, date] + attribution, usually at the end of the quote. If a place is + not listed, it is the Cypherpunks list itself. The author and + date should be sufficient to (someday) retrieve the source + text. By the way, I used quotes as they seemed appropriate, + and make no claims that the quoted points are necessarily + original to the author--who may have remembered them from + somewhere else--or that the date listed is the origination + date for the point. I have something like 80 megabytes of + Cypherpunks posts, so I couldn't do an archaeological dig for + the earliest mention of an idea. + 20.3.3. People can quote this FAQ under the "fair use" provisions, + e.g., a paragraph or two, with credits. Anything more than a + few paragraphs constitutes copyright infringement, as I + understand it. + 20.3.4. Should I give up the maintaining of this FAQ and/or should + others get involved, then the normal co-authorship and + inheritance arrangements will be possible. + 20.3.5. The Web. WWW and Mosaic offer amazing new opportunities for + on-line documents. It is in fact likely that this FAQ will be + available as a Web document. My concern, however, is that the + integrity and authorship be maintained. Thus, splitting the + document in a hundred or more little pieces, with no + authorship attached, would not be cool. Also, I intend to + maintain this document with my powerful outlining tools + (Symantec's "MORE," on a Macintosh) and thus anyone who + "freezes" the document and uses it as a base for links, + pointers, etc., will be left behind as mods are made. + + 20.4. A Few Words on the Style + 20.4.1. Some sections are in outline form + - like this + - with fragments of ideas and points + - with incomplete sentences + - and with lists of points that are obviously only starting + points for more complete analyses + 20.4.2. Other sections are written in more complete essay form, as + reasonably self-contained analyses of some point or topic. + Like this. Some of these essays were taken directly out of + posts I did for the list, or for sci.crypt, and no + attribution H (since I wrote the stuff...quotes from others + are credited). + 20.4.3. The styles may clash, but I just don't have the hundreds of + hours to go through and "regularize" everything to a + consistent style. The outline style allows additional points, + wrinkles, rebuttals, and elaborations to be grafted on easily + (if not always elegantly). I hope most readers can understand + this and learn to deal with it. + 20.4.4. Of course, there are places where the points made are just + too fragmentary, too outlinish, for people to make sense of. + I've tried to clean these up as much as I can, but there will + always be some places where an idea seemed clear to me at the + time (maybe not) but which is not presented clearly to + others. I'll keep trying to iron these kinks out in future + versions. + 20.4.5. Comment on style + - In many cases I merged two or more chunks of ideas into one + section, resulting in many cases in mismatching writing + styles, tenses, etc. I apologize, but I just don't have the + many dozens of hours it might take to go through and + "regularize" things, to write more graceful transition + paragraphs, etc. I felt it was more important to get the + ideas and idea fragments out than to polish the writing. + (Essays written from scratch, and in order, are generally + more graceful than are concatenations of ideas, facts, + pointers, and the like.) + - Readers should also not assume that a "fleshed-out" + section, made up of relatively complete paragraphs, is any + more important than a section that is still mostly made up + of short one-liners. + - References to Crypto Journals, Books. Nearly every section + in this document _could have_ one or more references to + articles and papers in the Crypto Proceedings, in + Schneier's book, or whatever. Sorry, but I can't do this. + Maybe someday--when true hypertext arrives and is readily + usable (don't send me e-mail about HTML, or Xanadu, etc.) + this kind of cross-referencing will be done. Footnotes + would work today, but are distracting in on-line documents. + And too much work, given that this is not meant to be a + scholarly thesis. + - I also have resisted the impulse to included quotes or + sections from other FAQs, notably the sci.crypt and rsadsi + FAQs. No point in copying their stuff, even with + appropriate credit. Readers should already have these docs, + of course. + 20.4.6. quibbling + - Any time you say something to 500-700 people, expect to + have a bunch of quibbles. People will take issue with + phrasings, with choices of definitions, with facts, etc. + Correctness is important, but sometimes the quibbling sets + off a chain reaction of corrections, countercorrections, + rebuttals, and "I would have put it differently"s. It's all + a bit overwhelming at times. My hope for this FAQ is that + serious errors are (of course) corrected, but that the List + not get bogged down in endless quibbling about such minor + issues as style and phrasing. + + 20.5. How to Find Information + 20.5.1. This FAQ is very long, which makes finding specific questions + problematic. Such is life--shorter FAQ are of course easier + to navigate, but may not address important issues. + 20.5.2. A full version of this FAQ is available, as well as chapter- + by-chapter versions (to reduce the downloading efforts for + some people). Search tools within text editors are one way to + find topics. Future versions of this FAQ may be paginated and + then indexed (but maybe not). + 20.5.3. I advise using search tools in editors and word processors to + find sections of interest. This is likely faster anyway than + consulting an index generated by me (which I haven't + generated, and probably never will). + + 20.6. My Views + 20.6.1. This FAQ, or whatever one calls it, is more than just a + simple listing of frequently asked questions and the lowest- + common-denominator answers. This should be clear just by the + size alone. I make no apologies for writing the document I + wanted to write. Others are free to write the FAQ they would + prefer to read. You're getting what you paid for. + 20.6.2. My views are rather strong in some areas. I've tried to + present some dissenting arguments in cases where I think + Cypherpunks are really somewhat divided, such as in remailer + strategies and the like. In cases where I think there's no + credible dissent, such as in the wisdom of Clipper, I've made + no attempt to be fair. My libertarian, even anarchist, views + surely come through. Either deal with it, or don't read the + document. I have to be honest about this. + + 20.7. More detailed disclaimer + 20.7.1. This detailed disclaimer is probably not good in most courts + in the U.S., contracts having been thrown out if favor of + nominalism, but here it is anyway. At least nobody can claim + they were misled into thinking I was giving them warranteed, + guaranteed advice. + 20.7.2. Timothy C. May hereby disclaims all warranties relating to + this document, whether express or implied, including without + limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or + fitness for a particular purpose. Tim May will not be liable + for any special, incidental, consequential, indirect or + similar damages due to loss of business, indictment for any + crime, imprisonment, torture, or any other reason, even if + Tim May or an agent of his has been advised of the + possibility of such damages. In no event shall Tim May be + liable for any damages, regardless of the form of the claim. + The person reading or using the document bears all risk as to + the quality and suitability of the document. Legality of + reading or possessing this document in a jurisdiction is not + the responsibility of Tim May. + 20.7.3. The points expressed may or may not represent the views of + Tim May, and certainly may not represent the views of other + Cypherpunks. Certain ideas are explored which, if + implemented, would be illegal to various extents in most + countries in the world. Think of these explorations of ideas + as just that. + + 20.8. I've decided to release this before the RSA patents run out...