[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Dissident test (was re: CDDL)

Marco d'Itri wrote:
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr wrote:

I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
groups, it only forbids anonymous changes from being distributed.

Yes. If "something bad happens to the user" (I will not call this
"discrimination") in some improbable made up situation it is obviously
incidental and not intended by the license.

Can't the license then simply be ammended, rather then people having to make educated guesses what's probable and what's not so probable?

That has worked in the past, afair, and in general it should be simpler for the copyright holder to ammend the license to allow distributions of anonymous changes than to have to spend time debating probabilities and intent.

Purely practically speaking, of course.

daibor topic

Reply to: