Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it. That doesn't >imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations, >allowing termination at any time according to the author's mood and whim.
Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users? >The "Tentacles of Evil" test enunciates the need for this better (FAQ 9 A c): > >"Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now >in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program: >to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to >expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to >discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought >out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to >maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot >allow even the author to take away the required freedoms!" Yes. Why does the test say this? Which aspect of the DFSG is represented by this test? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
