Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)

Thomas Roessler (roessler@guug.de)
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:06:17 +0200

• Next message: Frank O'Dwyer: "Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)"
• Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: Can someone please poke some holes in this idea?"
• In reply to: Lenny Foner: "Can someone please poke some holes in this idea?"
• Next in thread: Richard Stallman: "Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)"

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.

tlr

-- 
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

• Next message: Frank O'Dwyer: "Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)"
• Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: Can someone please poke some holes in this idea?"
• In reply to: Lenny Foner: "Can someone please poke some holes in this idea?"
• Next in thread: Richard Stallman: "Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)"