On 1/29/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On that line of reasoning, "people who don't live in California" are, > too. But we both know how weak arguing on DFSG#5 tends to be. > > I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the > software indicate an EULA, since simple copyright can not, in theory, > restrict the use of software obtained legally. This implies that any > license that restricts use requires a click-through license. Their > implementation requires strict restrictions on distribution, to ensure > that all recipients agree to it, and that falls widely afoul of DFSG#1.
I think DFSG#5 was written not because of this, but because of licenses that exclude some uses of the software, e.g. nuclear weapons factories, animal torture and things that people dislike. The choice of venue clause is a minor discrimination, and not one which I think deserves so much attention. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
