Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
> >A hostile government can also declare that the subversive code can not
> >be distributed because it says so; that's not the point of that test.
> >Please see http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html, 9 A(a).
>
> Did you mean 9A(b)? "Any requirement for sending source modifications to
> anyone other than the recipient of the modified binary---in fact any
> forced distribution at all, beyond giving source to those who receive a
> copy of the binary---would put the dissident in danger." The very fact
> that he's a dissident puts him in danger, and the hostile government can
> declare that the source must be provided regardless of what the license
> says. I still can't imagine a practical situation where this would be an
> issue. If the dissident is likely to be put in danger then he is already
> doing something worse than breaching copyright law.
The "dissident test" does sound very silly the way it is described in
the FAQ. Perhaps the FAQ should give a realistic example as well as
the memorable but silly "dissident" example. A realistic example might
be a group of people doing something that someone else might consider
to be an infringement of their patent; to avoid problems they want to
avoid letting other people know what they are doing. Or they might
want to avoid revealing a perfectly legal business plan. In general, a
free software licence should allow privacy of a group.
Reply to: