Re: Dissident test (was re: CDDL)
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:08:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:29:52AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > If non-discrimination doesn't cover groups persecuted by
> > > governments, who does it cover for you?
> > I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
> > groups, it only forbids anonymous changes from being distributed.
> So a licence that doesn't discriminate against non-US, but forbids
> changes made with non-US keyboards from being distributed would be
> fine by you? (There's probably a better example.)
This is word play, if you want to forbid anonymous distribution, then say so
explicitly in the DFSG and submit an amendment to that effect.
> > [...] Also notice that nothing in the CDDL clause force you to
> > include the email address or even your real name for code attribution, i think
> > a pseudonym would be widely accepted in such cases as the above.
> That depends what "identifies You" means in CDDL 3.3. Do you
> know whether pseudonymously edited versions of star would be
> tolerated by Joerg Schilling, for example?
Well, he can hardly sue you if you are anonymous, now can he ? And all the
rest is moot anyway, since you cannot force him to takeover his code.
And if the change is noted as havign been written by chen zan or whatever,
without email address, how do you know it is a pseudonym or not ?