Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Jan 2, 2010, at 2:11 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, it's not different at all - and a license that says "you aren't allowed
> to do anything illegal with this software" is *not* DFSG-compliant. Civil
> disobedience should not result in violations of the copyright licenses of
> software in Debian.
Civil disobedience works by appealing to the general public. You don't
simply break the law and claim it was rightful civil disobedience.
Those who choose not the follow the law must know the consequences of
what they do.
By that reasoning, if your cause is indeed just, and worthy, then I
don't see why the same view doesn't apply to possible copyright suits.
Who's to say that the copyright owner doesn't agree with you? Why would
the potential threat of an infringement suit dissuade you more than, say,
10 years in jail? Because you can be sued and forced to declare
Or put it this way, if the software said "you may use this for illegal
purposes" then that could be seen as promoting breaking the law. And
doesn't the GPL depend on people, you know, following the law? Otherwise
I'm going to say that my not following the GPL is justifiable civil
disobedience against (rolls dice) "the hegemony of" (rolls again)
"oppressive communistic" (rolls again) "techno-weenies."
If the copyright owners of embedded software for vehicles, and of GPS
systems, had the same clause, do you think they would be suing people for
copyright infringement every time you went over the speed limit?