Re: PROPOSED: the Dictator Test (was: Contractual requirements [was: request-tracker3: license shadiness])
On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would
otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
I think this would actually bring debian closer to FSF's position: "If
a contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that
copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as
legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably
decide it is non-free." (from the page "The Free Software Definition"
/philosophy/free-sw.html on GNU mirrors).
IIRC, if it requires a contract to be formed, there needs to be some
sort of consideration from licensee to licensor in exchange for the
permissions. Could that consideration arguably be called a fee and
therefore this test would be a simple illustration of DFSG 1?
We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat
or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark)
does not get to make up his or her own laws?
I have been referring to these things as "enforcement-by-copyright".
Maybe it's the "Private Laws Test"?
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"To be English is not to be baneful / To be standing by
the flag not feeling shameful / Racist or partial..."