cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1998-10-02 - Re: propose: `cypherpunks license’ (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)

Header Data

From: Richard Stallman <rms@santafe.edu>
To: warlord@MIT.EDU
Message Hash: 7c1de3c00293aa48ca2ca77faddacf9e6c7d301ff5e134d4399c33caa49f96e8
Message ID: <199810021611.KAA24078@wijiji.santafe.edu>
Reply To: <199809281845.TAA18662@server.eternity.org>
UTC Datetime: 1998-10-02 03:14:34 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 11:14:34 +0800

Raw message

From: Richard Stallman <rms@santafe.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 11:14:34 +0800
To: warlord@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)
In-Reply-To: <199809281845.TAA18662@server.eternity.org>
Message-ID: <199810021611.KAA24078@wijiji.santafe.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



    The big issue I see with GPL and Crypto software is that with the GPL
    you cannot add any redistribution restrictions.  The problem is that
    due to the United States export rules, I cannot export Crypto
    software, 

That is true.

	      which means I must legally put a restriction on any Crypto
    code I write.

In general, the fact that action A is illegal does not mean you must
include a requirement in your distribution terms not to do A.  Such a
requirement is superfluous, because A is illegal no matter what you
say about it.  For example, if you distribute email software, you
don't need to state the requirements not to use it for fraud or
harrassment.  They are illegal anyway.

It might be a good idea to include, in crypto software, a notice
informing users that US law forbids export of the software, as a
warning lest they do so unaware that export control covers it; but
this need not have the form of a binding requirement.  It could just
be "for your information".

Thread