FAQ update: Q9, test origins, was: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
"Miriam Ruiz" <email@example.com> wrote:
> 2008/8/27 Marco d'Itri <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > email@example.com wrote:
> >>> In the case of point #3 that you're making here, are you saying that
> >>> the AGPLv3 fails the dissident test?
> >>Yes, I'm saying that it might be failing it. If you use a program
> > Not that this matters, since this "test" is not part of the DFSG.
> It's an old discussion. It may not be explicitly included, but it's
> implied by them. I know that for some people it's still a
> controversial issue.
[FAQ maintainer cc'd] I suggest adding the following paragraphs to
please, because I'm getting bored of re-finding them. All three
existed before I started posting to debian-legal in May 2003, so
please let me know if I've mis-summarised any of them.
[Under 9a The Desert Island test.]
This test first appeared in <a
discussion of vim in 2002</a> as a test of DFSGs 1, 2 and 3 in
receive-only development environments, probably based on the joke
about old hackers retiring to desert islands to escape flamewars which
has been <a
to debian lists</a> sometimes.
[Under 9b The Dissident test.]
This test originated in <a
discussion of mixmaster in 2002</a> as a rationale for not accepting
forced submission or identification. It seems grounded in the DFSGs
"1. Free redistribution" and "5. No discrimination against persons or
groups" and built on <a
earlier discussion of mixmaster</a>.
[Under 9c The Tentacles of Evil test.]
This test was first posted to this FAQ as a test of forced-upgrade
and termination clauses which can break DFSG 1. It was <a
mentioned on debian mailing lists in 2003</a> and <a
again in relation to the GNU FDL</a>.
Hope that helps,
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237