My take on the licensing flame war: I live in both Richard Stallman's world (the Open Source community) and in the Cypherpunk crypto community. The two have different goals. RMS is mistaken about appropriate licensing for crypto code written by cypherpunks because he thinks the goals are the same, when they are not. The Open Source community seeks maximum spread of free software. The Cypherpunk community seeks maximum spread of the use of non-GAKed cryptography. Some members of the Cypherpunk community are happy to have source hoarders and such profit in any and all ways from the use of their code *IF* it will spread the use of cryptography in the world. They are willing to let anyone -- Microsoft, RMS, or anyone else -- use their work, even in ways that do not further the objectives of the Open Source community, provided it means more non-GAKed cryptography is in use by more people. The Open Source community obviously has different goals. It is seeking free software, not the wide spread of cryptography. RMS is mistaking his goals for those of the cypherpunk community. Their goals are not diametrically opposed, but they are not identical either, and so the sorts of licenses they may want to use for the software they create are not necessarily the same. EAY noted that he stopped distributing under GPL because *he*, the author, wanted more people to be stealing his code, thus spreading cryptography further. It wasn't a question of random people bitching that the GPL didn't let them write proprietary software -- it was THE AUTHOR OF THE CODE who wanted people to be able to write proprietary software, because he felt that the goal of spreading crypto was more important to him than the software freedom issue. I am in no way saying RMS should stop using the GPL, or attempting to say what sort of license is better for a particular author, but it should be recognised that there are people who are happy having their crypto routines stolen and incorporated into proprietary software -- who are, in fact, elated when this happens, because it means more people will be using cryptographic software -- and that they might not find the GPL to be ideal for their goal. Perry