On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:12, Anthony Towns wrote: [Much good stuff snipped]
> I think it would be really nice to be able to justify tests like: > > (d) can you use it completely naively - without reading, > understanding or thinking about the license - without running > the risk of violating the license > > (e) can you modify it to make it useful, then use it similarly > naively? > > on similar technical grounds; since those things do have real benefits > to users. I think at least (d) should be a reasonable test. Consider trying to argue the opposite in front of a judge. "Well, your honor, I know that the software looks like it's designed to do x, y, and z, and the default installation of the software does x, y, and z as soon as it's installed, but the license clearly states that ....." This seems far too similar to "By reading this message you agree to send me $500" to me. (e) seems to me to be (d) under the assumption that software should be Free(tm). Not having these carries with it the implicit message that freedom is only for those willing to do the equivalent of subscribing to debian-legal, and not at all for the casual user, which just enforces the erroneous thought that "Well, I can't program, so having the source isn't any good to me anyway". -- Stephen Ryan Debian Linux 3.0 Technology Coordinator Center for Educational Outcomes at Dartmouth College