[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
- To: (Blind List Only)
- Subject: Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
- From: [email protected]
- Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 07:38:05 -0700
- Comments: This message was anonymously remailed. Do not reply to the address in the From: line, unless you wish to report a problem. Thank you.
- In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 May 1994 07:42:09 EDT." <[email protected]>
- Remailed-By: [email protected]
- Sender: [email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Subject: Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 07:42:09 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email protected]>
Ezekial Palmer says:
> The GNU copyleft is supposed to disallow a lot of for-profit uses.
The GNU copyleft in no way prohibits any commercial use whatsoever.
Please do not spread inaccurate rumors about copyleft.
That's a pretty big statement and it's at least partly wrong. Does
selling something count as a commercial use? By using "for-profit"
instead of "commercial", I meant you're not supposed to profit
directly from the software, like by selling it. Of course it's
possible to walk the line, but you have to be careful.
The way that Lucid's Energize development environment relates to their
version of GNU Emacs is a good example of establishing where the line
is and making it clear what's being sold, "for-profit", and what's
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----