On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:07:21PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Branden Robinson: > > > Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not > > everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though. > > > > Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the > > following to the DFSG FAQ[2]. > > > > The Dictator Test: > > > > A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of > > acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other > > applicable laws. > > What about warranty disclaimers? What do you propose is permitted under law before the corresponding copyright license is granted that is not permitted afterwards? In the United States, at least, I can't sue someone under product liability law if I don't own or have access to the product I claim is defective. In fact, as I understand it, I can't even be member of a class action on my behalf[1]. If an innocent bystander is harmed through the operation of defective Free Software, how can he or she be held to the warranty disclaimer, given that he or she never received the corresponding copyright license? > Or quite reasonable clauses dealing with patent issues? Well, that's a pretty vague question. What do you propose is permitted under law before the corresponding copyright license is granted that is not permitted afterwards? What right do you have to produce a patented invention in the *absence* of a license that has a "quite reasonable clause dealing with patent issues" in it? To fail the Dictator Test, a license has to take away liberties you enjoyed in the first place. [1] It's my understanding that places like Switzerland have no concept of class actions, so mind the jurisdiction. -- G. Branden Robinson | America is at that awkward stage. Debian GNU/Linux | It's too late to work within the branden@debian.org | system, but too early to shoot the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | bastards. -- Claire Wolfe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature