Re: EULAs and "manifestations of assent"
>>>>> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
Branden> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:03:44AM +0100, Sunnanvind
Branden> Fenderson wrote:
>> Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > In my opinion,
>> the DFSG should not be interpreted in a way that > legitimizes
>> any restrictions on use, and this is what the FSF's "freedom >
>> zero" and DFSG 6 is about.
>> The FSF freedom zero, yes, but I don't see that in DFSG 6.
Branden> No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Branden> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of
Branden> the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example,
Branden> it may not restrict the program from being used in a
Branden> business, or from being used for genetic research.
Branden> How do you propose to implement use restrictions without
Branden> actually preventing people from using the program to some
Branden> specific end?
Somewhere between the quoted paragraph and your interpretation of the
text, field of endeavor became replaced with specific end. The
phrases are not the same. I'll agree that things that have no use for
specific end restrictions clearly have no field of endeavor
I also accept that for many proposed use restrictions there is an
obvious implied field of endeavor restriction.
I haven't been convinced of the general case.
I don't think it actually matters in any practical way for any
discussion I've read, I just don't yet buy the argument that DFSG 6
would prevent all use restrictions.