Re: Bug#579796: ITP: othman -- electronic Quran browser in Python
Hi,
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 02:19:03PM +0300, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> > Clear or vague, if they stick to a license that restricts usage, then
> > it fails DFSG #6.
> > See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/03/msg00064.html, for
> > example, for a quite similar case.
> Yes, but it can be placed in non-free, right ?
I think the main problem is that "good" is a subjective term, so people
who believe that they are doing "good" feel entitled to use the work,
and others who disagree with their views will claim that they are in
breach of the licence. Who gets to be the authority on what is "good"?
I'd also prefer if people would not use my software for causes I find
objectionable, but I don't think I can even do so much as draw a clear
line what constitutes "use". For example, I've written a tiny script
that will take your GPG key and produce a printable file with the
important data of the key arranged so that you can easily create bits of
paper to hand out at keysigning events. Now, people are using this to
establish secure communication channels, which can be used for any kind
of purpose, including conspiring to commit crime. Am I at fault for not
excluding this in the licence? Have I facilitated that crime because I
made it easier for the criminals to conspire?
I think at some point I just have to decline responsibility for others.
Simon
Reply to: