cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-05-25 - Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?

Header Data

From: anonymous@extropia.wimsey.com
To: (Blind List Only)
Message Hash: 4151cfa9b05ad07b60cafc6a2212386604762e6359701fa73804a68b527b9cac
Message ID: <199405251438.AA04385@xtropia>
Reply To: <9405251142.AA03820@snark.imsi.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-25 14:55:10 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 25 May 94 07:55:10 PDT

Raw message

From: anonymous@extropia.wimsey.com
Date: Wed, 25 May 94 07:55:10 PDT
To: (Blind List Only)
Subject: Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
In-Reply-To: <9405251142.AA03820@snark.imsi.com>
Message-ID: <199405251438.AA04385@xtropia>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    Subject: Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ? 
    Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 07:42:09 -0400
    From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
    
    Ezekial Palmer says:
    > The GNU copyleft is supposed to disallow a lot of for-profit uses.
    
    The GNU copyleft in no way prohibits any commercial use whatsoever.
    Please do not spread inaccurate rumors about copyleft.

That's a pretty big statement and it's at least partly wrong.  Does
selling something count as a commercial use?  By using "for-profit"
instead of "commercial", I meant you're not supposed to profit
directly from the software, like by selling it.  Of course it's
possible to walk the line, but you have to be careful.

The way that Lucid's Energize development environment relates to their
version of GNU Emacs is a good example of establishing where the line
is and making it clear what's being sold, "for-profit", and what's
free.

Zeke

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLeNeVxVg/9j67wWxAQHVRAP9E/gumxwwQ0vbCLH8O72gPpEze96/G0DM
6IA7RnwBlT8yuIXmbCi9LmWw6/rekOVo0HU+0A4JOWtJ2xASMDr+zRmwtVUKts+1
3RKUDicxt1jrTo4Mu9o4vJilaCIlgd5x4TA0skGKujXGrTl7cmRQKNfkREYprmpg
Gmqzmj/7cY8=
=O23T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thread