Re: Desert island test

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: [...]
> 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", [...]

Why describe the dissident test as relying solely on the "field of
endeavour" (DFSG 6) guideline?  That's new and also seems like a strawman:
I think that it's clear that protesting is a field, but I don't think
identity-disclosure necessarily prevents protest.

Contrary to my previous message
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00263.html
in the discussion
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/22852
(and the unattributed stuff on wiki.d.o),
the earliest claim that I've found about the dissident test is that
being forced to disclose one's identity is an unacceptable cost, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/05/msg00057.html
so a license that fails the dissident test is breaking DFSG 1, 3
and/or 5.

FWIW, I don't think I've ever relied on the dissident test.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct