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

Re: "dissident test" has been proven wrong and should not be used any more

Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > It's not wrong, I think this is a perfectly great application of DFSG
> > point 5.
> > 
> > More simply, it checks for license that discriminates against people who
> > wish to not use their real name, for privacy or otherwise.

Back in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/08/msg00123.html
(which http://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest fails to credit)
I documented its origins in Brian Ristuccia's messages
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/05/msg00057.html and

> But that is not the only outcome of the famous but ill guided "dissident
> test".  That is why we need to use DFSG itself and stop using "dissident
> test".  This has been discussed many times.  

Fine.  Any time you see someone say or write that it fails the
dissident test, replace "the dissident test" with "a combination of
DFSG 1 and DFSG 5" in your mind.  Many others would like to keep the

> I also think if a person is a real dissident who is determind to violate
> lethal legal requirements of his regime, he will not hesitate to violate
> a petit legal requirement of the license text. He will use any tools
> available in his hand to change his regime.  So why worry about
> unenforceable part of the license text.  That is what I think.

Oh wow.  I am really sorry to see such contempt for dissidents emailed
out from an address @debian.org - they may be fighting completely evil
state oppression while wishing to respect the wishes of their fellow
creative workers.  Do you really think that avoiding a law which says
"all authors must be shot" would mean someone will necessarily ignore
authors' licences?

> For more http://wiki.debian.org/IpadicLicense .

I remain uncomfortable with that licence which - due to what that page
dismisses as "bad English" - seems to import the entire law of every
country as a condition of the licence.  And that page also notes the
internal contradictions in the licence.  But whether or not that is
worth the risk is for ftp-masters and project leaders, ultimately.

The arguments on that wiki page look like rants, misunderstandings and
personal abuse of some past contributors.  It's shameful and needs a
good clean-up.  I'm trying to recover my wiki account, but I may
forget before that process completes, so please feel free to step in.

MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/

Reply to: