On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 04:25:58PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Osamu Aoki <[email protected]> [120924 16:10]: > > > > Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003 > > > > using this "dissident tests" to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced > > > > packages. > > > > > > You do not need the dissident test for that. You can also just quote the > > > DFSG. The tests are just a method to make people not look to much at the > > > letter but at the spirit of the DFSG to distinguish some pure > > > theoretical issues from real world issues, i.e. to bring some saneness > > > into the discussion. > > > > That is exactly my position: "You do not need the dissident test". > > What you quote as being "exactly [your] position" is me trying to say > that we need the dissident test. (And I hope noone gets DD who has not > looked at it.)
I see your position. But this "dissident test" has been streched to the extreme and shot down many licenses as DFSG violation. * requiring "organization name" as in this case is quite reasonable to ask. * requiring to comply with law of the country is quite reasonable (GPL2.0 does. Many licenses also require export control compliance.) I understand requirering to disclose unreasonble amount of personal information is problemetic... Dissident test may have some value but that is not the final test. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
