Re: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 01:03:53AM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote:
> By my license, however, the censorware cannot be applied without the
> knowledge and consent of the users of the proxy. I think this is
> reasonable.
yes, the terms and the intent of your license are reasonable - even noble.
however, it conflicts with the DFSG.
it conflicts with both point 5 and point 6:
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
research.
point 5 applies because people implementing censorware qualify as
"Persons or Groups".
point 6 applies because censoring web sites is a field of endeavour.
the fact that you, or i, happen to think they're pretty despicable
Persons, Groups, or Fields of Endeavour is completely and utterly
irrelevant.
All persons, all endeavours benefit from those points - not just those
that happen to be popular...or ethical...or whatever.
btw, i've often been tempted to add an anti-spam clause (like "you may
not use this software to spam or if you are a spammer") on software that
i write. i don't do so, and the only reason i don't is because it would
fail the DFSG.
it's fairly primitive compared to your FilterProxy, but i've even
written my own (squid redirector) banner blocker because animated ads
and javascript ads annoy the hell out of me, and i don't want to be
spied on and tracked as i browse the web. i'm aware of the fact that
my squid-redir could be used to implement censorware. i've licensed it
under the GPL anyway.
that's one thing you just have to accept when you write free software -
sometimes people are going to use your code for stuff that you consider
to be undesirable or morally reprehensible or outright evil.
> I hope that my software could be included in "main". However, if
> it is determined that my license is incompatible with the DFSG, I
> would rather FilterProxy be in non-free than remove the license. I
> spent about a month racking my brain on this issue (I even badgered my
> lawyer friends), and this is what I came up with. I don't think usage
> requirements or shrink-wrap licenses are desirable, in general.
>
> Having my efforts labeled as "non-free" is disheartening, but I'll get
> over it. ;)
unfortunately, according to the DFSG (and Open Source Guidelines)
definition of "free" it is non-free.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0
Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0
Reply to: