🚀 go-pugleaf

Christopher Conway interprets the clause giving RSA the right to use
and distribute any modifications to RSAREF or the Application as
making such things "their property." This is an unfair misreading.

Assuming the message is not an attempt to make RSA wrong, but Conway
is genuinely concerned:
They give RSA free for non-commercial use; fair is fair and they
should have the right to use and distribute anything that uses
RSA in this way. If you want to have a commercial product then
you should license RSA and pay the fee.

The agreement says clearly that you can't charge (except for media
costs) for anything you develop with RSAREF. Thus no economic
value is lost if RSA also distributes the Application or modification.
To the contrary, since those who use RSAREF do so to provide free
product for what one assumes are altruistic motives, RSA's giving
the products even wider distribution should be viewed as a
"Good Thing" and not some evil or unfair purpose.

A right to use and distribute of the kind in the agreement does
not convey any property rights; just a right to use and distribute.
See the parallel language about RSAREF in the agreement, which gives
the licensee rights to use and distribute, but does not convey
property rights.

Could we please stop the RSA bashing here, assume good faith
until PROVEN otherwise, and get on with things?

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail