[14127] in Cypherpunks
Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (anonymous@extropia.wimsey.com)
Wed May 25 10:58:33 1994
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 07:38:05 -0700
From: anonymous@extropia.wimsey.com
To: (Blind List Only)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 May 1994 07:42:09 EDT."
<9405251142.AA03820@snark.imsi.com>
-----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" <perry@imsi.com>
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
free.
Zeke
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a
iQCVAgUBLeNeVxVg/9j67wWxAQHVRAP9E/gumxwwQ0vbCLH8O72gPpEze96/G0DM
6IA7RnwBlT8yuIXmbCi9LmWw6/rekOVo0HU+0A4JOWtJ2xASMDr+zRmwtVUKts+1
3RKUDicxt1jrTo4Mu9o4vJilaCIlgd5x4TA0skGKujXGrTl7cmRQKNfkREYprmpg
Gmqzmj/7cY8=
=O23T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
