On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:45:33PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > Michael> Thus it is a form of discrimination. It imposes costs > > (conditional, > > Michael> but still costs) on some people that it does not impose on > > Michael> others. > > > > As does every single license on earth, because you could be sued in a > > foreign country or not depending on the law of the land. > > Again, this is not something imposed by the license. The fact that a > license is mute as to human rights or being able to use cryptographic > software does not mean that it is non-free in countries that neglect > human rights or that outlaw cryptography. Quite simply, a free > software license should not attempt to correct wrongs that exist > outside of the software.
Well, I don't mind when they try to do that, if the attempt doesn't have negative side-effects. For example, in principle, I don't mind the anti-DMCA clauses. In practice, of course, they need to be scrutinized to be sure they don't have unintended negative consequences. It's those negative consequences that can make the license non-free. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
