[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the > >> initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, > >> then you must supply one.
> >As I see it 6c is a serious privacy problem. Perhaps the requirement > >for privacy is not directly implied by any of DFSG, but I can't > >imagine people being very happy with the requirement to let the > >initial developers know how the software is being used. Do you think > >upstream really need this clause? > > I asked upstream, but didn't get a response yet. Since it is french holydays > time, i doubt i will get one for the next weeks, if ever. > > Still i question the unsupported claim of a privacy breach you make. What is > the privacy problem here ? And i don't want to hear about chinese dissidents > or desert islands ? I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily confidential, in that we don't want the rest of the world finding out what we are working on until there is an official announcement. We use free software. We even use ML in some projects, though I personally use Haskell. Sometimes we might want to distribute software that uses a free library to selected partners, with whom carefully drafted non-disclosure agreements have been signed. I can't imagine the legal department accepting anything like 6c. > And do you consider that violation of a licence is also admissible in fear of > breaching privacy ? Sorry, I don't understand that question.
