1998-10-09 - Re: propose: `cypherpunks license’ (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)

Header Data

From: Rick Campbell <rick@campbellcentral.org>
To: rms@gnu.org
Message Hash: fb42d45fa5316fe0beb4dcebf761976c2a69b10dddc0da94564afa703e7dde65
Message ID: <199810090225.WAA06475@germs.dyn.ml.org>
Reply To: <199810090025.UAA02286@psilocin.gnu.org>
UTC Datetime: 1998-10-09 02:43:29 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:43:29 +0800

Raw message

From: Rick Campbell <rick@campbellcentral.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:43:29 +0800
To: rms@gnu.org
Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)
In-Reply-To: <199810090025.UAA02286@psilocin.gnu.org>
Message-ID: <199810090225.WAA06475@germs.dyn.ml.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Boundary..3997.1071713808.multipart/signed"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:25:25 -0400
    From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
        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.
    Public domain gives person P the ability to make modified versions and
    give users no freedom in using them.  The result is that people in
    general have less freedom.

Your presentation confuses two different pieces of software.

It is only the derivative work which has less freedom associated with
it.  It remains the case that the person releasing their software to
the Public Domain has given the users of the software that is released
into the Public Domain more freedom to do as they will with that

By releasing into the Public Domain, the author gives up the power to
control other people's activities and allows them to make different,
derived, software which might not have the same level of freedom.
However, such activities do not detract from the freedom that remains
associated with the software that was released into the Public Domain
-- freedom that is taken away by the GPL.

And while some derivative works may be proprietary, it's not uncommon
for other derivations to remain in the Public Domain.  CMU Common Lisp
is an example that comes to mind.  Whether or not Lucid, Allegro, or
any other proprietary system ever made use of any CMU Common Lisp code
has not detracted from the code released into the Public Domain.  This
code continues to be maintained, enhanced, ported to new platforms,


Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="pgp00003.pgp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pgp00003.pgp"
Content-Description: "PGP signature"