Re: Dissident versus ASP
Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot
> > require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people
> > use it or for what purpose, etc).
> Instinctively, this seems a reasonable test to apply to a license.
> Can anyone think of any currently-accepted-as-DFSG-free licenses that
> would fail this test?
> If not, I propose we consider adding this to our battery of tests; maybe
> we could call it the "Towns Test", which is nicely alliterative. :)
I think the principle is a good one. Heretofore, our "tests" have
been thought experiments which demonstrate why a particular license
term would be harmful.
I would suggest reformulating this in such terms; as it sits, it's
really just like an extra DFSG section.