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

Re: Desert island test

Hi Ken!

You wrote:

> > > consider this: if the bloody murderer will kill you if you reveal
> > > your identity (dissident test) the license demanding you do so is
> > > nonfree. But if the bloody murderer will kill you if you distribute
> > > source, the license demanding you do so is fine.
> > > 
> > > What principle can possibly be used to get that?
> > 
> > The principle that there are certain freedoms essential in a software
> > work for that work to be called free.
> The point of the desert island (and bloody murderer) examples is to analyze
> *whether* a restriction is free.  If in order to do this you need a principle
> which already defines what restrictions cannot be called free, then the
> desert island test is completely useless.  You have to decide whether the
> restriction is free before you can even try to apply it.

Exactly.  We consider requirements to send changes non-free.  The Desert
Island Test doesn't change that in any way, it merely illustrates _why_ we
think it's non-free (namely, because we think that free software should
also be free for people in isolated situations).

| Bas Zoetekouw      | Sweet day, so cool, so calm, so bright, |
|--------------------| The bridall of the earth and skie:      |
| bas@zoetekouw.net  | The dew shall weep thy fall tonight;    |
+--------------------|                    For thou must die.   |

Reply to: