Florian Weimer wrote: > * Branden Robinson: > >>Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not >>everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though. >> >>Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the >>following to the DFSG FAQ[2]. >> >>The Dictator Test: >> >> A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of >> acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other >> applicable laws. > > What about warranty disclaimers? Or quite reasonable clauses dealing > with patent issues? Much like the GPL allows distribution (which is not permitted by copyright law) under certain circumstances, Free patent clauses would allow use of patents (which is not permitted by patent law) under certain circumstances. Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this test as written would prohibit warranty disclaimers. Then again, the effectiveness of warranty disclaimers in a "you only need to accept this license if you distribute the software" license like the GPL are already a debated topic. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature