On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:39:45PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > On Monday 12 July 2004 11:45 am, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > While the imagery of a computer programmer sitting on a lonely > > > desert isle hacking away with their solar powered computer, > > > drinking coconuts, and recieving messages in bottles might be > > > silly, the rights that such a gedanken is protecting are anything > > > but. > > > > Not to argue against the intent of the Desert Island Test, but at > > least in the United States, such a freedom is provided by the > > law/courts, not the license. > > I'm not familiar with the logic behind this.[1] Could you perhaps > elucidate and provide references to case law? You weren't and I wasn't, either. Is it reasonable to expect most licensors to be? This sounds to me like a good reason for keeping the Desert Island test, and buttressing it with real legal principle. "Passing the Desert Island test: It's not just a good idea, it's the Law." -- G. Branden Robinson | When we call others dogmatic, what Debian GNU/Linux | we really object to is their branden@debian.org | holding dogmas that are different http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | from our own. -- Charles Issawi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature