On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > As others have pointed out, Dissident vs. Desert Island are somewhat > different tests. However, I guess it really depends on what > information is required by #3, in the intent of the author. Yes, they sort of grew out of each other, though.[1] [The weak form (no compelled release of information to peopple not in the distribution path) of the dissident test is equivalent to the dsert island test.] > If, on the other hand, it seeks to establish a valid and useful > contact address (as appears, on the face of it, to be the intent, > since it says 'for support', and an address which cannot be used for > obtaining support is useless for that), I have to think it it fails > the Dissident test fairly obviously. My primary purpose here is lies with the identity part of the dissident test. That is, to hash out where the balance lies between the interests of free software (ie, a desire to know who is contributing what for copyright and licensing purposes) and anonymity. That this license requires individuals to identify themselves to whoever they distribute modifications to, and that this violates the strong form of the dissident test, I concur completely. Don Armstrong 1: Assuming my memory of the two years ago or so that these tests were first discussed is reasonably accurate. -- "For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none is possible." http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature