1998-10-07 - Re: propose: `cypherpunks license’ (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)

Header Data

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@guug.de>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: a22008c5b2431372dc50e2e6eb92f044bc7671aa1057709352294e5bc71f635e
Message ID: <19981007200617.C26981@sobolev.rhein.de>
Reply To: <199810062305.RAA29198@wijiji.santafe.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1998-10-07 18:52:06 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 02:52:06 +0800

Raw message

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@guug.de>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 02:52:06 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)
In-Reply-To: <199810062305.RAA29198@wijiji.santafe.edu>
Message-ID: <19981007200617.C26981@sobolev.rhein.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 06:26:16AM -0400, 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.

Making proprietary changes to GPLed software for your own use seems
to be fine with the GPL.  The problem occurs if you are giving away
changed versions of software: While GPL will force you to give your
distributed software's users the same freedom you enjoyed yourself
when creating the software, PD won't preserve that freedom.

Thus, GPL is the license model which most consequently follows the
freedom for end users thread of thinking.

Thomas Roessler  74a353cc0b19  dg1ktr  http://home.pages.de/~roessler/
     2048/CE6AC6C1  4E 04 F0 BC 72 FF 14 23 44 85 D1 A1 3B B0 73 C1