On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:15:10AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Adam Borowski wrote: > > Having a country non-free doesn't make a license non-free. In the chinese > > dissident test the user chooses to fight against the bloody murderer (who > > wears an uniform) -- he breaks unrelated laws, yet does not breach the > > license in any way. > A license that fails the dissident test *is* non-free. No, a license that doesn't follow the DFSG is non-free; a license that fails the dissident test is merely not useful for someone who wants to violate local law while obeying copyright law. The claim that protesting is a "field of endeavour", and that forcing you to be publically associated with your use, distribution or development of software is "discrimination" is at best a matter of opinion; it's not a logical necessity. The dissident test is certainly useful for people trying to understand the implications of license conditions; but it's not a simple "non-free", no matter how long individual contributors to -legal have thought it, or how emphatically they state it... Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature