Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>:
>
> > That's interesting. I propose the following license then. Is it free
> > in your opinion? It doesn't technically violate any DFSG clauses, but I
> > think it's self-evidently non-free, because it takes away fundamental
> > freedoms.
I'll reply to the individual terms, but in general your surmise is
correct: I reject idea that something violates DFSG just because it
violates "fundamental" freedoms. Everyone has different ideas
about fundamental freedoms, and it's just not practical for us
to make decisions about them.
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.
> > (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
tailored the sentence, though, e.g. "you may not decrease my EBay
popularity rating", then it would pass DFSG.
> > (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.
> > (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.
> > (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.
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,
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.
-Lex
Reply to: