Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Matthew Garrett wrote:

<snip>
>>A hostile government can also declare that the subversive code can not
>>be distributed because it says so; that's not the point of that test.
>>Please see http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html, 9 A(a).
> 
> Did you mean 9A(b)? "Any requirement for sending source modifications to
> anyone other than the recipient of the modified binary---in fact any
> forced distribution at all, beyond giving source to those who receive a
> copy of the binary---would put the dissident in danger." The very fact
> that he's a dissident puts him in danger, and the hostile government can
> declare that the source must be provided regardless of what the license
> says. I still can't imagine a practical situation where this would be an
> issue. If the dissident is likely to be put in danger then he is already
> doing something worse than breaching copyright law.

The theory here is quite simple.  You must not be forced to distribute to
anyone who you aren't already distributing to.  Perhaps the dissident is
distributing, morally and comfortably, through a secure underground
network, but to contact the author, he would have to use insecure means
traceable by his enemies.  He should not be morally obligated to do so. 
*This* is the sort of thing the dissident test is about.

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.