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

[Rick Campbell <rick@campbellcentral.org>]

    Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:06:17 +0200
    From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@guug.de>
    
    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.

I see, so GPL offers you additional freedoms, like the freedom to be
forced into a particular action.  Cool :-)

Really, the end user of Public Domain software has more freedom than
the end user of GPLed software.  They have every freedom allowed by
GPL, plus the freedom to make derivative works (which might not have
the same level of freedom) that are proscribed by the GPL.  It really
makes no sense to me for someone to argue that when your actions are
restricted you are more free.

When I read RMS' arguments in favor of GPL, I can't help but note a
certain ``nah nah na nah nah'' childish quality to them. ``Well, if
you won't let me use yours, then I won't let you use mine'' is the
root of the arguments.  I don't think that there's anything wrong with
wanting an arrangment like that, I just think that it's ridiculous to
try to twist that into telling people that by restricting them you're
really helping them.  You're not, period.

			Rick

PGP signature