Re: Dissident versus ASP
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 04:31:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > The claim is that:
> > > Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole
> > > and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that
> > > the Dissident test is just another way of saying that the only ways
> > > you're allowed to close the ASP loophole are ones which are practically
> > > unreasonable.
> > Sorry, when I say I agree with this claim, I mean the => direction.
> > The <= direction is surely false; for example, I formulated the
> > dissident test long before the ASP loophole (of any sort) had ever
> > been pointed out to me.
> "I never thought about a number bigger than 10^128, therefore a^b *
> a^c = a^(b+c) is surely false for numbers that large"
> You're not making any sense.
Because it's logical equivalence, not numerical equality.
I agree that the dissident test + the practical objections imply that
there is probably no way to close any of the things called "the ASP
I do not agree with the claim that "the dissident test is just another
way of saying that the only ways your allowed to close the ASP
loophole are ones which are practically unreasonable."
Rather, the dissident test arises out of a serious attempt to explain
why certain kinds of conditions (including, for example, the "tax
return" provision) are not acceptible in a free software license. I
certainly did not original compose the dissident test because I was
worried about "the ASP loophole". I know that I mentioned this test
on December 16, which is before I ever heard of "the ASP loophole".
Moreover, the <= direction suggests that the only reason for the
dissident test would be to keep "the ASP loophole" open. I don't
think so; there are plenty of other reasons for caring about that
test. And, there might well be licenses which fail the dissident
test, but are not "ASP loophole closing" licenses.