1998-09-30 - Re: propose: `cypherpunks license’ (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)

Header Data

From: bram <bram@gawth.com>
To: rms@gnu.org
Message Hash: 810686e5555e4e9e0767aefc0c76228747d688740b7f027c799f8c6f5cd53a0e
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980930151900.32067A-100000@blackbox>
Reply To: <199809301621.KAA09089@wijiji.santafe.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1998-09-30 09:08:22 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 17:08:22 +0800

Raw message

From: bram <bram@gawth.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 17:08:22 +0800
To: rms@gnu.org
Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)
In-Reply-To: <199809301621.KAA09089@wijiji.santafe.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980930151900.32067A-100000@blackbox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Richard Stallman wrote:

> It isn't surprising that people who want to write non-free software
> are disappointed that the GNU project won't help them.  What is
> amazing is that they feel this is unfair.  They have no intention of
> letting me use their source code in my programs--so why should they be
> entitled to use my source code in their programs?  These people seem
> to think that their selfishness entitles them to special treatment.

I've never heard anyone say it's unfair, I've just heard people claim that
there's benefit they could be getting which is prohibited by it. This
generally translates into benefit which is denied their clients as well,
in addition to people who interact with their clients. I for one don't
much care if code I write makes someone money in addition to doing some
good, I just want it to be beneficial.

Basic physical necessities, as well as business mechanisms, unfortunately
make it impossible for all code I write to be distributed without some
mechanism by which I could make money off of it. That doesn't mean my code
is evil, just that I'm not independently wealthy.

(Incidentally, the code I'm working on right now will probably wind up
being free, with a considerably looser license than GPL.)