On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:05:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > The above did not get much discussion; I'd just like to AOL it, and > suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would > otherwise be legal is non-free by definition. > > Yes, this will vary by jurisdiction, but that is already true for many > of the decisions we have to make (crypto-in-main, the expiration of the > LZW patent, etc.). > > We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat Test" > or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark) holder > does not get to make up his or her own laws? "Autocrat" and "dictator" are roughly synonymous and just refer to systems of government where all power stems from a single individual; the UK was an autocracy for much of its history without individual freedom being significantly impaired. I think the word you want is "totalism" (as in "totalitarian"). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature