1998-10-04 - Re: propose: `cypherpunks license’ (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)

Header Data

From: Rick Campbell <rick@campbellcentral.org>
To: rms@gnu.org
Message Hash: 24e34e17669eab3232cb91b4250a011041f031fe9d4bb9af4371bf148d183ac1
Message ID: <199810051105.HAA13894@germs.dyn.ml.org>
Reply To: <199809301621.KAA09089@wijiji.santafe.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1998-10-04 22:06:05 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 06:06:05 +0800

Raw message

From: Rick Campbell <rick@campbellcentral.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 06:06:05 +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: <199810051105.HAA13894@germs.dyn.ml.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Boundary..3997.1071713807.multipart/signed"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:21:42 -0600
    From: Richard Stallman <rms@santafe.edu>
    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.

This is faulty logic.  I may wish to write some code for free, that
is, have the intention of letting you use my source code in your
programs, and to write other code for profit.  If I want to write
something for free, I'd like it to be free for any purpose, including
commercial purposes, thus the GPL is inappropriate.

I would vastly prefer that people simply place their code in the
public domain explicitly.


Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="pgp00000.pgp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pgp00000.pgp"
Content-Description: "PGP signature"