On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:40:01AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: > > On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat > >> Test" > >> or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark) > >> holder > >> does not get to make up his or her own laws? > > The Ideocrat Test? Or perhaps Egocrat?
Heh, the latter will attract the attention of Objectivists...which is
almost never desirable. ;-)
> Autocrat or dictator make it sound like there's a legitimate (i.e.
> government) third party imposing conditions on the software.
It does? Where I come from, "autocrat" and "dictator" are terms of
oppobrium.
Well, with certain exceptions[1]. :(
> Also, this could classify licensors who unilaterally change the meaning of
> words of phrasing in a normally-acceptable sofware license, such as
> "permission to modify and distribute" != permission to distribute
> modifications.
I don't think we need the Dictator Test to dispose of that case. If the
license doesn't give people the freedoms required by the DFSG, then it's a
straight-up DFSG violation.
As I understand, the purpose of our tests is to make it easier to discern
when DFSG violations are taking place. I would hope that even those who
are heavily critical of debian-legal could understand "no, you don't have
permission to distribute modified copies" as a violation of DFSG 3.
However, given recent events and incendiary rhetoric on the -vote list, I'm
not sure my hope is all that well-founded. :(
[1] "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." -- George W. Bush, 2000-12-18,
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html
--
G. Branden Robinson | Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny
Debian GNU/Linux | that reading it will cause an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | aneurysm. This is not that .sig.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
