Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 06:25:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:51:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Not really an objection, but for completeness I think some practical examples
> > of things which fail this test should be added to the FAQ as well.
>
> I'll try and think of some.
>From memory, the genesis of this test came from discussions about RT3's "if
we see it and like it, it's ours"[1] licence clause, which extended beyond
the realm of things a copyright holder could do. So that would be one
possible example (probably with fictional names).
The "Pet a cat" licence would be a good example.
One thing I just realised with this test -- it would be a large argument
against attempts to enforce patent and trademark issues in a copyright
permission grant. If a copyright licence says "thou shalt not take our name
in vain, or we'll take away your permission to modify the software" --
they're effectively coercing the user into giving up rights they would
otherwise have in order to get the grant of permission, which I feel
strongly is non-free.
[1] I think Best Practical have rebutted that interpretation; nevertheless
that was roughly how it was interpreted when first presented.
- Matt
Reply to: