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

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

Richard, you seem to be missing one of the major reasons behind the little
schism developing here.

You say that proprietary software developers shouldn't expect the GNU
project to help them for nothing in return. Thing is, Cypherpunks *want*
to help with crypto -- even if those we help make proprietary software,
and even if we get nothing for our help -- and if GNU folks don't do that,
well, we just won't be GNU folks.

(More generally (and more abrasively), we'd like to make a license suited
to our goals -- meaning one promoting placement of easy-to-use
cryptography wherever it can be useful (including (gasp) in proprietary
software) and discouraging the spread of incompetently-done, weak, or
escrowed crypto -- and the GNU GPL just isn't it)

By the way, regarding the GNU GPL's interaction with export regs:

     In general, the fact that action A is illegal does not mean you
     must include a requirement in your distribution terms not to do
     A. ...

I agree that what you say is correct and, logically, should apply to
crypto regs*, but in practice, failing to include the requirement you
mention is asking for trouble. Ask Cypherpunks if you want to know more
about that, as I believe elaboration in this post would draw <ahem>s from
our beloved retromoderator.

* Logically, crypto regs shouldn't even exist in a marginally free
society, but, again, this is deep in <ahem> territory.