Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
>> We have allowed clauses of the fairly narrow form "You must not do
>> thing X with this work if it is illegal to do so in your jurisdiction"
>> before, though I don't care for such stupid clauses.
> If we have, we shouldn't have. Such clauses fail the dissident test.
I think you're right. I'm quite sure these have been allowed in the past.
You have convinced me that they shouldn't be allowed. :-)
> Imagine that the work in question is an encryption tool, and that
> <Insert Your Favorite Evil Oppressive State> has a local law
> forbidding the possession and distribution of cryptographic
> programs. Our friend the dissident nevertheless distributes the
> program and afterwards miraculously escapes to the free world.
> If the license for the work has a "you-must-follow-local-law" clause
> the dissident will now risk being sued by the author for breach of
> license terms.
Yes. That doesn't sound free, does it?
> Free software must be free for dissidents too.
> (Or instead of the encryption, it could be *any* piece of software,
> and <IYFEOS> could have a local law against women engaging in software
> distribution, or against distribution of any software not specifically
> allowed by government censors).
There are none so blind as those who will not see.