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

Re: PROPOSED: the Dictator Test

Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 08:05, Branden Robinson wrote:
>>On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:49:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>>On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:57:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>>>>This comment has just clarified something that's been rattling around
>>>>half-formed in my head for a little while now, regarding Free licences.  I
>>>>don't know if it's been raised before, but I think it bears discussion:
>>>>"A licence cannot be Free if it disallows actions which, in the absence of
>>>>acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by Copyright law, or imposes
>>>>restrictions not present by Copyright law".
>>>>To put it another way (and closer to Brian's wording), if the licence isn't
>>>>simply a grant of permission but requires things of me which I would
>>>>otherwise be allowed to do, it can't be free.
>>>As far as I (and d-legal, I believe) understand it, to disallow these
>>>things, you need to form a contract (an EULA).  Most restrictions which
>>>require this are non-free.
>>>I wouldn't quite go so far as to generalize it to "all"; it's probably better
>>>to look at the restrictions on their own merits, which will usually also show
>>>them to be non-free (and in a more direct way than "this probably isn't
>>>enforcable under copyright law alone").  Attempting to go being copyright law
>>>is a good hint that something may be wrong, though.
>>The above did not get much discussion; I'd just like to AOL it, and
> The TLA AOL does not come up in dict; can you please explain that to me/
> us.


>>suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would
>>otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
> Sounds like a useful rule of thumb


- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: