Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:47:37PM -0400, lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:57:49PM -0400, lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> > > The Dictator Test goes well beyond DFSG. DFSG clause 1 merely says
> > > that there is no fee or payment for the software. Nothing in DFSG says
> > > that the license must make no requirements at all. The Dictator
> > > Test is a stronger test.
> >
> > The dictator test, as I read it, does not say that a licence must make no
> > requirements at all. Every permission grant other than placing a work in
> > the Public Domain would fail if that were the case.
> >
>
> "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."
>
> To be pedantic, I could have said: "Nothing in the DFSG says that a
> license must make no prohibition whatsoever". Do you disagree with that
> statement?
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.
> 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?
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?
> 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.
- Matt
Reply to: