Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free
>>>>> "sl" == Steve Langasek <email@example.com> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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"