On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:00:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:59:25PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > > It's not a cost, it's a risk. There are plenty of other risks that we take > > when we distribute software, that we consider acceptable. What makes this > > one unacceptable? > > The fact that it's a risk *imposed explicitly by the license*. This is not > a risk that's mitigated by cautious adherence to the license, and it is not > a risk that's inherent in the exercise of rights that belong exclusively to > the copyright holder; it's a risk that you are asked to accept in exchange > for the right to exercise the four freedoms with respect to the work. > > I'm sure there are lots of people who are willing to accept this risk, and > I'm even fairly confident that doing so is a win (at least with respect to > copyright holders that are known quantities, like Sun or Apple). Still, I > don't believe it's compatible with the principles of Free Software as > expressed in the DFSG.
I see your point, and I can see how you think this violates the spirit of the DFSG, but on the other hand I think that we shouldn't give undue consideration to potential corner cases (such as a copyright holder using this clause to harass and abuse). The risk here is certainly lower than, for example, distributing something we know is patented. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
