Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:57:31AM -0400, lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> That said, I don't think we are obligated to ship something just because
> it is DFSG free. For example, I don't think we should distribute
> massive quantities of public domain poronography. I don't think we
> should ship a BSD-licensed program that, when run, emails the contents
> of a user's hard drive to USENET, wipes the hard drive, and then blows
> up any connected monitor, even if the software is perfectly free in
> every way. More on this below.
The problem is that presumably the maintainer of the package of PD pr0n
wants it in Debian, or else it wouldn't have been packaged. But without a
clear DFSG basis (judging by your terms), we would have no actual reason
whatsoever for removing the package. How do you suggest we enforce your
"not useful" criteria against packages if we can't even instantiate
"fundamental freedoms" as an argument?
> > > (1) You must never say or write anything negative about the authors.
>
> The way this is phrased, it means I cannot add a comment to the software
> that is negative about the authors, so it would violate DFSG. If you
How would this violate the DFSG? Come along, be specific. You require the
same standard of others.
> > > (2) You agree never to exercise your fair use, fair dealing, or other
> > > similar rights regarding this software.
>
> This one's against DFSG. It's actually about uses of the software.
Where does the DFSG say we can't make rules against use? Come on, be
specific.
> > > (3) You agree not to use this program at all, in any way, without
> > > agreeing to this license.
>
> That's perfectly fine. If the terms of the agreement pass the DFSG,
> then there is no problem in users actually having to agree with them
> before they can use the software.
Well, except for the fact that it's not something that copyright can
regulate.
> > > (3) You agree never to sue anyone over anything.
> > > (4) You agree to allow the authors to search your home and person
> > > without notice at any time.
> > > (5) You agree to waive your right to trial by jury in all criminal or
> > > civil cases brought against you.
>
> These are DFSG-free, but clearly not something we want to distribute.
Why not? You're asking us to base every real decision we make on the
guidelines in the DFSG, but you are willing to make independent judgement
calls.
> That's okay, however, because DFSG is not our only line of defense. We
> are not forced to distribute software even when it is DFSG free. Most
> blatantly, SC #4 will rule out a lot of things we might possibly
> distribute, because they would harm our users. And even when #4 passes,
rm can harm our users, too. Presumably the software to be packaged is
useful to *someone* or else it wouldn't be packaged.
> we can still exercise our judgement. I hereby propose the "Nobody Wants
> It" Test. :) If no user would want it if they knew what they were
> getting, then we do not distribute it.
The person who packaged it wanted it, and unless you want to accuse
maintainers of being clueless, it's going to be a bit hard to presume that
the maintainer didn't know what they were getting.
Oh, and what's your DFSG justification for the "Nobody Wants It" test?
- Matt
Reply to: