1998-10-05 - Re: propose: `cypherpunks license’ (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)

Header Data

From: Bruce Schneier <schneier@counterpane.com>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: 59ec5a9906d9861adb1af3f849719b15a837333acfae6e690f40034fe9d50d12
Message ID: <199810051636.LAA07155@mixer.visi.com>
Reply To: <199810051105.HAA13894@germs.dyn.ml.org>
UTC Datetime: 1998-10-05 03:38:07 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 11:38:07 +0800

Raw message

From: Bruce Schneier <schneier@counterpane.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 11:38:07 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)
In-Reply-To: <199810051105.HAA13894@germs.dyn.ml.org>
Message-ID: <199810051636.LAA07155@mixer.visi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Clear and coherent summary, and accurate.  Thanks.

At 11:39 AM 10/5/98 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>My take on the licensing flame war:
>I live in both Richard Stallman's world (the Open Source community)
>and in the Cypherpunk crypto community.
>The two have different goals. RMS is mistaken about appropriate
>licensing for crypto code written by cypherpunks because he thinks the
>goals are the same, when they are not.
>The Open Source community seeks maximum spread of free software.
>The Cypherpunk community seeks maximum spread of the use of non-GAKed
>Some members of the Cypherpunk community are happy to have source
>hoarders and such profit in any and all ways from the use of their
>code *IF* it will spread the use of cryptography in the world. They
>are willing to let anyone -- Microsoft, RMS, or anyone else -- use
>their work, even in ways that do not further the objectives of the
>Open Source community, provided it means more non-GAKed cryptography
>is in use by more people.
>The Open Source community obviously has different goals. It is seeking 
>free software, not the wide spread of cryptography.
>RMS is mistaking his goals for those of the cypherpunk
>community. Their goals are not diametrically opposed, but they are not 
>identical either, and so the sorts of licenses they may want to use
>for the software they create are not necessarily the same.
>EAY noted that he stopped distributing under GPL because *he*, the
>author, wanted more people to be stealing his code, thus spreading
>cryptography further. It wasn't a question of random people bitching
>that the GPL didn't let them write proprietary software -- it was THE
>AUTHOR OF THE CODE who wanted people to be able to write proprietary
>software, because he felt that the goal of spreading crypto was more
>important to him than the software freedom issue.
>I am in no way saying RMS should stop using the GPL, or attempting to
>say what sort of license is better for a particular author, but it
>should be recognised that there are people who are happy having their
>crypto routines stolen and incorporated into proprietary software --
>who are, in fact, elated when this happens, because it means more
>people will be using cryptographic software -- and that they might not
>find the GPL to be ideal for their goal.
Bruce Schneier, President, Counterpane Systems     Phone: 612-823-1098
101 E Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis, MN  55419      Fax: 612-823-1590
           Free crypto newsletter.  See:  http://www.counterpane.com