Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
On Jul 12, 04 01:20:48 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Forwarding with permission of author, who accidentally replied privately.
Thanks, Brandon :-)
> > For illustration, let me invent the Country of Sillyness.
> > There copyright law generally permits software vendors
> > to keep the origin of code as a secret.
> > (even if it is obvious that GPLed code was used.)
> >
> > Now, the GPL says that source code must be disclosed.
> > Would that put the title 'Dictator' on RMS?
>
> Your words are confusing.
>
> Do you mean "their copyright law explicitly gives unrestricted permission to
> distribute certain works in binary form without source without permission
> from the copyright holder, but removes that right if you agree to
> distribute any copies under another license?"
I got you confused. sorry.
> If the country simply didn't grant copyright
> rights over derivative works to the original copyright holder, then you
> could create derivative works and distribute them without source,
> regardless of the GPL, and that would be just fine.)
Yes, that's what I had in mind.
It has the silly effect, that the original copyright holder has a had time
proving his rights, so yes, it is convoluted.
Perhaps more realistic examples of that idea exist.
I my silly example, the GPL tried to prohibit the action of 'ditributing code
without source', an action allowed by law.
I'd apply the dictator test and would say 'GPL failed'.
The dictator test depends a lot on the 'copyright or other applicable law'
to make its test decision, that makes it fragile, I think.
cheers,
Jw.
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green!__/ _=======.=======_
<V> | jw@suse.de linux software/ _---|____________\/
\ | 0911 74053-508 creator __/ (____/ /\
(/) | _________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8
Reply to: