[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free

>>>>> "sl" == Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:

    sl> I have a hard time believing that this really provides any
    sl> protection in the case where you *choose* to modify the source
    sl> code without first verifying that you are able to comply with
    sl> the terms of the license.  This is akin to saying "the license
    sl> said, get permission from the author before modifying; I
    sl> couldn't get permission from the author (he didn't return my
    sl> phone calls); so I modified it anyway."

Understanding what you "obviously cannot  do" is always difficult.  In
your example, it's quite obvious that contacting the author was simply
a  bit  harder, not impossible.  However,   there  are some situations
(such   as the "desert  island"  example) in  which you can't possibly
comply with  the license.  Depending  on other  factors - for example,
modifying source  code was vital to  your survival, because you had to
make  it use the IP-inside-bottles protocol  - you could be judged not
culpable because you didn't respect the license, but you couldn't have
and you had to use the software.

It's a very delicate and  vast field.  For  Italian law, it resorts to
neboulus concepts  such  as the accuracy  of the  "pater  familias" to
judge situations, and other googied.

I personally find the "chinese dissident" test much more interesting.

And, "chinese  dissident"  and "desert  islands" tests aparts,  I find
RPSL requests of having modification  publicly available is just going
to limit diffusion of Helix   amongst those people whose ability  Real
could benefit most from: hackers.


Andrea Glorioso               andrea.glorioso@centrotemporeale.it
Centro Tempo Reale                http://www.centrotemporeale.it/
AGNULA/DeMuDi Technical Manager   http://www.[demudi|agnula].org/
"There's no free expression without control on the tools you use"

Reply to: