1998-10-06 - Re: propose: `cypherpunks license’ (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)

Header Data

From: Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de>
To: coderpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 4cd2ebb80222c8198310e28c98fdf9c7ee58377c08c766fa7bf88a249081429b
Message ID: <361B5A74.332D759E@stud.uni-muenchen.de>
Reply To: <199810071026.GAA20270@germs.dyn.ml.org>
UTC Datetime: 1998-10-06 13:16:36 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 21:16:36 +0800

Raw message

From: Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 21:16:36 +0800
To: coderpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)
In-Reply-To: <199810071026.GAA20270@germs.dyn.ml.org>
Message-ID: <361B5A74.332D759E@stud.uni-muenchen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Rick Campbell wrote:

> Public Domain status denotes more freedom than GPL.  It allows all of
> the freedom of GPL and in addition, it allows the freedom of making
> proprietary modifications.

Logically this is (trivially) true, since PD imposes no conditions
while GPL imposes some. One possibility I can imagine is that those
who favour GPL and presumably also the ideas behind it could be
a bit more motivated to achieve a better quality of the software 
(including maintenance) than those who put software in the PD.
Of course this is just speculation and I have no way of knowing the 

M. K. Shen