Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:25:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > >>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: >> >>>I agree with this interpretation to a large degree. The examples in the DFSG >>>for fields of endeavor are explicit examples, and thus imply some sort of >>>explicit discrimination (such as "No one involved in genetic engineering may >>>use this software") rather than an unintentional discrimination against corner >>>cases. Licenses which require distribution of modifications to upstream >>>authors are not discriminating against castaways any more than the GPL is >>>discriminating against people who somehow lose all copies of the source to >>>their modifications after distributing modified binaries. >> >>This is why DFSG#5 and #6 are fairly useless, in practice. I can't think of >>any license that actually explicitly said "may not be used for bioweapons >>research", clauses that clearly fall under those guidelines. Any less > > "No commercial use" is the usual one. I'm pretty sure I've seen a licence > that prohibited use in genetics research, and I'm quite sure there's been > one that prohibited use in nuclear facilities (although that was more of an > overzealous warranty disclaimer, from memory). I also recall licenses that prohibited use in various types of weapons. For that matter, there is also the "Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement" (HESSLA), as described by the GNU project on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html (although the original project seems to be defunct at the moment). It prohibits use in spyware and by governments that violate human rights. As ridiculous as it sounds, that is actually a form of discrimination and use restriction, which makes the license not DFSG-free. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature