[103541] in Cypherpunks
Re: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Shostack)
Tue Sep 29 08:38:58 1998
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:14:50 -0400
From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
To: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>,
Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer <cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
In-Reply-To: <199809290009.TAA03654@einstein.ssz.com>; from Jim Choate on Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 07:09:51PM -0500
Reply-To: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
On Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 07:09:51PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
|
| The problem with your interpretation is that in a sense you want your cake and
| eat it too. In short you want to be able to use somebody elses code in your
| product without their having a say in how their code is used or receiving a
| cut of the profits. The GPL/LGPL is specificaly designed to prevent this.
I'll suggest that in a security context, having ones cake and
eating it too may not be such a bad thing. If I can develop a
commercial product with crypto code thats been made available to the
community, then there is a lower chance the code will contain bogosity
in its security critical functions.
The GPL (not the LGPL) specifically prevents this with the
best of intentions.
Adam
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume
