[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test



Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
> I agree with that statement, but it's not relevant to the discussion.  The
> dictator test does not require that a licence make no prohibition
> whatsoever, it merely requires that a licence not prohibit actions which
> would be permitted by copyright law, which is a very, very different beast.

Okay; I was thrown by the "or other applicable" part, by which I thought
it was meant "all laws applying".


> >  If you agree with the statement, then how do you base the
> > dictator test on DFSG?
> 
> Oh dear, you're one of those people.  You are aware that the 'G' stands for
> "guidelines", right?  That guidelines aren't exhaustive?

Yes, I do not mean it in a trivial sense.  The DFSG talk all about
permissions related to permissions relating to copyright stuff.  A rule
that talks about non-copyright stuff seems to be reaching beyond
the whole universe of things that DFSG talks about.

The closest I see is the mention of a fee in #1; a "restriction" might
be construed as a "fee".  However, if it is just about fees, there is
no need for a new test.


> If it makes you feel happier, consider the tests to be "proposed amendments
> to the DFSG".  Do you feel that the dictator test does not reasonably
> diagnose a non-free licence, or is your objection merely that it's not a
> straightforward restatement of the DFSG?

Good question.  I actually am not convinced the dictator test even
describes non-freeness accurately.  I would be okay, for example, if the
license says you must smile when you upload a new version, but since
this has nothing to do with copyright it would fail the Dictator Test. 
To convince me that the smiles requirement is non-free, you will have to
convince me that this is sufficiently onerous to be a "fee".  I wouldn't
reject it just because smiling has nothing to do with copyright, and
I wouldn't reject it because people have a fundamental freedom to
be grouches.

As you may or may not have noticed, the properties of software I am
interested in seeing Debian support are use, modification, and
redistribution.  It bothers me to even use the word "free", because it
tempts people to go overboard and start talking about freedom of speech
and freedom of religion, etc.  While I don't *like* the smiles
clause, I don't want Debian to bother with this kind of thing.



> > Aside from the lack of connection, I see a downright problem: the
> > dictator test is relative to "applicable laws" which is a shifty concept
> > at best.  Applicable to whom?  Under what circumstances?  The dictator
> > test gives you different answers depending on what copyright and
> > "applicable" laws you decide that the test is talking about.  That just
> > can't be a good measure of DFSG-freeness, which lists specific things
> > the license must not prohibit regardless of the jurisdiction.
> 
> There's plenty of things already that we have to judge against
> jurisdictional issues -- patents, author's rights, common vs civil law, and
> so on.  I haven't noticed any irreconcilable problems in these areas due to
> differing details.

The point is that the test itself has different meanings depending on
what you decide "copyright law" means.  Which copyrright law?  Different
answers to this question give you a different test!  I would be happier
if the test said, instead of "copyright law", something like
"permissions involving use, modification, and distribution".  Then at
least the meaning of the test would sit still.  I'd remain uneasy
about whether this is a test that we should follow, though.

Lex Spoon



Reply to: