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

Header Data

From: Richard Stallman <rms@santafe.edu>
To: schneier@counterpane.com
Message Hash: ac47a5229a7942baad5cd51c872ef48f148f3c8ce3885f0c5ee486908ee52126
Message ID: <199810062306.RAA29216@wijiji.santafe.edu>
Reply To: <199810051105.HAA13894@germs.dyn.ml.org>
UTC Datetime: 1998-10-06 01:11:27 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:11:27 +0800

Raw message

From: Richard Stallman <rms@santafe.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:11:27 +0800
To: schneier@counterpane.com
Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)
In-Reply-To: <199810051105.HAA13894@germs.dyn.ml.org>
Message-ID: <199810062306.RAA29216@wijiji.santafe.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

    >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.

I beg your pardon, but this is no mistake.  I'm well aware of the
people who argue for donating code to companies "so it will be more
widely used."  Proprietary software developers have been seeking for
years to convince free software developers to think this way, and not
just in the field of encryption.  This is what the X Consortium used
to say (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html).

If you care about freedom, there's no reason why you can't care about
users' freedom to share and change software, and their freedom to use
encryption, at the same time.  You can work to spread use of
encryption and to spread users' freedom, at the same time, by
developing free encryption software.