John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: > > > � 51(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and > > equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, > > ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are > > entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, > > facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of > > every kind whatsoever. > > So it's perfectly all right, at least under 51(b), for a California > business to have a sign on the door that says "No admittance to persons > who patronize our competitors", say, or "We do not serve people named > George"? This is what troubles me about all the lists that have been > served up so far: it's just trivial to find cases where the spirit but > not the letter is violated.
Yes, I think discrimination in law is quite different from the type of discrimination we are talking about. I would say that the law is basically trying to protect the rights of minorities which have historically been subject to abuse. If there was a history of discrimination against people named George, then there would very likely be a law prohibiting that type of discrimination. We want a different sort of definition, one which tries to ensure that open source software is available to all, while simultaneously saying that certain actions may be prohibited. Maybe we could say something along the lines of ``the license must permit anything which we do not explicitly state may be forbidden.'' > > � 51(c) This section shall not be construed to confer any right or > > privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that > > is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, > > ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition. > > This doesn't seem to parse. Can you expound, or at least unpack it a bit? It means that the fact that you aren't allowed to discriminate against certain sorts of people doesn't therefore imply that they get any extra rights. You can't deny rights on a particular basis; you can still deny rights, though, as long as you deny them to everyone. It's OK to say ``we do not accept checks;'' it's not OK to say ``we do not accept checks from Lithuanians.'' Faced with ``we do not accept checks,'' Lithuanians can't claim that they have a right to pay by check on the argument that discrimination on the basis of national origin is not permitted. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
