On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:02:25AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > I think the Dictator Test itself is highly questionable, and even more > its rationale. It's a disguised attack on copyleft in general.
As the proposer of the Dictator Test, I call bullshit.
I'm perfectly happy with the concept of copyleft, and endorse it.
I may have the occasional bone to pick with what I regard as disiderata in
their licenses, but that's not the same thing as having a disagreement with
them on the fundamental principle of copyleft.
I'll thank you to not profess to being able to read my mind when you
clearly cannot.
> The wording of the test is simply not clear enough. After all, it was
> motivated by a mere notice which was arguably not even part of the
> license text. I'm not sure if it's against such licenses, certain
> licensing conditions in general, or only if they use some buzzwords
> ("by using this software, you agree to ...").
It was motivated by reading a number of outrageous statements in licenses
over the years. The one I attributed to XFree86 was only the most recent.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Mob rule isn't any prettier just
Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | government.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
