Re: Dissident test

To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Dissident test
From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:21:45 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] 87r7bvulli.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] E1EEbFV-0008Bc-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> (Matthew Garrett's message of "Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:28:37 +0100")
References: <[🔎] 20050908182846.GP17464@suffields.me.uk> <[🔎] 20050910185805.39d0ce41.frx@winstonsmith.info> <[🔎] dfvmkr$d05$1@wonderland.linux.it> <[🔎] 43237C7B.30706@oceanbase.org> <[🔎] 20050911062348.GA9965@localhost.localdomain> <[🔎] 20050911062348.GA9965@localhost.localdomain> <[🔎] 87fysbojb0.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org> <[🔎] E1EEbFV-0008Bc-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Matthew Garrett writes:

> Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
>
>> DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
>> against *any* person or group.  If you think it should be narrowed,
>> propose an amendment to the SC.
>
> The GPL plainly discriminates against people who live in areas where
> software patents are enforced.

How so?  Is this any different than the putative discrimination of any
license that refuses to indemnify users subject to other, bizarre,
local laws?

Michael Poole

Reply to:

References:
- CDDL
  - From: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
- Re: CDDL
  - From: Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info>
- Re: CDDL
  - From: Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT>
- Re: Dissident test (was re: CDDL)
  - From: Catatonic Porpoise <graue@oceanbase.org>
- Re: Dissident test (was re: CDDL)
  - From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
- Re: Dissident test
  - From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>
- Re: Dissident test
  - From: Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Prev by Date: Re: Dissident test
Next by Date: Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
Previous by thread: Re: Dissident test
Next by thread: Re: Dissident test
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread