Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
* Josh Triplett:
>>>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? Or quite reasonable clauses dealing
>> with patent issues?
>
> Much like the GPL allows distribution (which is not permitted by
> copyright law) under certain circumstances, Free patent clauses would
> allow use of patents (which is not permitted by patent law) under
> certain circumstances.
The main idea behind some patent clauses is to make the copyright
license conditional on some behavior with respect to patents. Such
clauses can be quite reasonable, but they would fail the proposed
test.
I think the Dictator Test itself is highly questionable, and even more
its rationale. It's a disguised attack on copyleft in general.
> Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
> the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
> software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this
> test as written would prohibit warranty disclaimers.
The wording of the test is simply not clear enough. After all, it was
motivated by a mere notice which was arguably not even part of the
license text. I'm not sure if it's against such licenses, certain
licensing conditions in general, or only if they use some buzzwords
("by using this software, you agree to ...").
Reply to: