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

Re: PROPOSED: the Dictator Test (was: Contractual requirements [was: request-tracker3: license shadiness])



On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:38:46AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> 
> wrote:
> 
> >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:

Gosh, that could be a real liability, given the frothy types who already
accuse members of our project of trying to be "holier than Stallman"[1] and
of being "fringe fanatics"[2].

On a more serious note, thanks for pointing that out.  The unfortunate
GFDL situation has done a lot to obscure the very great deal that Debian
and the FSF have in common.

> 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.

That's true as far as I understand U.S. contract law, which isn't very.

> Could that consideration arguably be called a fee and therefore this test
> would be a simple illustration of DFSG 1?

I think so.  Let's review the legal meaning of "consideration".

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:

  CONSIDERATION, contracts. A compensation which is paid, or all inconvenience
  suffered by the, party from whom it proceeds. Or it is the reason which
  moves the contracting party to enter into the contract. 2 Bl. Com. 443.
  Viner defines it to be a cause or occasion meritorious, requiring a mutual
  recompense in deed or in law. Abr. tit. Consideration, A. A consideration of
  some sort or other, is so absolutely necessary to the forming a good
  contract, that a nudum pactum, or an agreement to do or to pay any thing on
  one side, without any compensation to the other, is totally void in law, and
  a man cannot be compelled to perform it. Dr. & Stud. d. 2, c. 24 3 Call, R.
  439 7 Conn. 57; 1 Stew. R. 51 5 Mass. 301 4 John. R. 235; C. Yerg. 418;
  Cooke, R. 467; 6 Halst. R. 174; 4 Munf. R. 95. But contracts under seal are
  valid without a consideration; or, perhaps, more properly speaking, every
  bond imports in itself a sufficient consideration, though none be mentioned.
  11 Serg. & R. 107. Negotiable instruments, as bills of exchange and
  promissory notes, carry with them prima facie evidence of consideration. 2
  Bl. Com. 445.
       3. The consideration must be some benefit to the party by whom the
  promise is made, or to a third person at his instance; or some detriment
  sustained at the instance of the party promising, by the party in whose
  favor the promise is made. 4 East, 455;1 Taunt. 523 Chitty on Contr. 7 Dr.
  & Stu. 179; 1 Selw. N. P. 39, 40; 2 pet. 182 1 Litt. 123; 3 John. 100; 6
  Mass. 58 2 Bibb. 30; 2 J. J. Marsh. 222; 5 Cranch, 142, 150 2 N. H. Rep. 97
  Wright, It. 660; 14 John. R. 466 13 S. & R. 29 3 M. Gr. & Sc. 321.

> >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?
> 
> I have been referring to these things as "enforcement-by-copyright". 
> Maybe it's the "Private Laws Test"?

I still like "Dictator Test".  Doesn't a Dictator get to make up his own
laws?

[1] Message-id: <20040408031603.GC10452@taz.net.au>
    http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00019.html
[2] Message-id: <20040428045520.GA10922@thunk.org>
    http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00205.html

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |     One man's "magic" is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     engineering.  "Supernatural" is a
branden@debian.org                 |     null word.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Robert Heinlein

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: