From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 03:46:05 +0800
To: ravage@einstein.ssz.com
Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code) (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199810050201.VAA01105@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <199810050741.IAA11755@server.eternity.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate writes:
> > If your aim is to maximise crypto deployment, use BSD or some other
> > relatively free distribution license other than GNU, so that we can
> > more rapidly write and deploy crypto software to undermine the power
> > of the state.
> 
> With the proviso that the original author looses all access to profits from
> that code, effectively doing the R&D for untold numbers of companies without
> compensation or even recognition (they can claim it's all theirs at that
> point because they don't have to release the source).

Understanding dawns...

See, perhaps for you, personally, profit maximisation for yourself is
more interesting than crypto deployment.  But as I said in the section
quoted above "If your aim is to maximise crypto deployment", use BSD.

ie. Cypherpunks may choose to sacrifice profit, or recognition for in
the interests of deployment.

Tho' actually even these assumptions you are making are not always
correct: for example Eric Young does not charge for his software, Eric
gets lots of recognition (partly because his license asks for this --
"this software includes work by Eric Young" requirement); Eric I dare
say has as much consultancy work offered to him to work on developing
free code as he has hours for.

I ended up doing some paid crypto development work on SSLeay (the
resulting additions were also BSD licensed), and the person asking me
to do this commented that they had asked Eric, but he had too much
work.

So your theory doesn't work in this case: Eric is getting to make
money, get recognition, and maximise deployment.

Adam