On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> > > Permission to distribute binaries produced by compiling modified > > sources is granted, provided you > > 1. distribute the corresponding source modifications from the > > released version in the form of a patch file along with the binaries, > > 2. add special version identification to distinguish your version > > in addition to the base release version number, > > 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for the > > support of your modified version, and > > 4. retain our contact information in regard to use of the base > > software. > > > (3) seems to fail the Dissident test. This particular extension of the dissident test has always bothered me, which is one reason why I've never applied it in my own arguments of why a license is Free or not free. 1) Some sort of identification of the author of the work is required in order to allow people to exercise their DFSG guaranteed freedoms upon a work. If we did not have some sort of identification of the copyright holder of the work, the work is (probably) not properly licensed, and thus we cannot make use of it at all. This seems to break most copyleft schemes.[1] 2) The purpose (as I understand it) of the dissident test is to point out licenses which require disclosure of information to inviduals to whom the software has not actually been distributed. Because the above license actually doesn't require this, it doesn't seem to fall afoul of the narrow dissident test. (Or, the "desert island test.") 3) GNU GPL 2a) obstensibly requires this very same thing:[2] You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Finally, I really haven't thought much about the implicit support requirement that (3) brings out. All I can say is that I really wish upstream authors would stay away from the desire to write their own licenses. Don Armstrong 1: Some will probably argue that this is analogous to the GNU GPL's ASP loophole. 2: Others will probably argue that it doesn't, since 'stating that you changed the files' doesn't necessarily mean that you actually have to give your name. -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, "Chew more! Do more!" The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature