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

Re: Desert island test

2008/3/11, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>:
>  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.

Yep, you're right. It might severely damage the freedom of usage
itself, as it requires you to publicly announce that you're using and
modifying the program. I didn't think about it that way before.
Requirement of doing a public announcement of the software you're
using severely damages the freedom of usage and imposes an intolerable
restriction, in my opinion. The right to privacy [1] is in fact a
high-level one.


[1] http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html#Article%2017.1

Reply to: