Re: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?

[Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 02:25:10AM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote:
> Again, my license doesn't actually prevent people from implementing
> censorware.
> 
> To cut it down to the bare bones, the LICENSE says:
>     1) The LICENSE must propegate with derived works.
>     2) The user must know they are using the proxy, and choose to do so.
>     3) The user is responsible for the consequences of using the proxy.
> 
> Nobody has complained about anything but #2.  It seems so odd to me that
> knowledge that you are using software constitutes "discrimination".  It
> also seems odd that software forced upon a person could be called
> "free".  

Hmm, I can think of two use cases where #2 would get in the way.

1. Filtering your own content.

Suppose I have a company with an internal web site that includes
a page for every currenty active project.  A project pages
describes the project and its goals, lists the people who work
on it and who have worked on it, et cetera.  And they're so
nice that I'd like to display them to the public as well, so 
that everyone can see what cool stuff we're working on.  But I
don't want to publish the email addresses of the contact people
listed for each project, and I don't want to maintain two copies
of these pages.  So I set up public access through a transparent
FilterProxy that strips out these email addresses.  

2. Code sharing.

Suppose FilterProxy has some juicy and elegant bits of code that
I would like to use in a web server I'm writing.  Oops, then I
wouldn't be able to install the web server unless I warn all users
that it's a FilterProxy-derived web server, and get their consent.
(s/web server/HTML editor/ for a slightly different example)

I provide these cases not really as arguments but as food for thought.
License to share code is part of my own definition of free software,
the DFSG doesn't require it.

Richard Braakman