On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:50:38AM +0200, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 08:52:02AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> > BTW, I spended another thought on this license and that it is definitely
> > not applicable: Assume someone would plan a murder using software XY
> > which is forbidden to use for evil. This murder in spe would read the
> > license and think: Uhm, I'm not allowed to use this software legally so
> > I will sit down, delay my plan and will rewrite this software to finally
> > beeing able to do this murder... I'd call the attempt of this license
> > something of the kind "Trying to make the world a better place but
> > fail." The evil users will simply not care and others end up with
> > non-free software. I'd love to see a re-evaluation of this kind of
> > licenses.
>
> This argument does not help because it intrinsically assumes
> that one can know beforehand what's good and what's evil.
>
> Assume I would license GNUmed in a way as to say:
>
> GPL except you are not allowed to use it to track the
> health of prison inmates.
>
> Now what ?
I do not really like to spend my time on broken licensing but your
example does not fit. You *explicitely* are discriminating fields of
endeavor (item 6. of DFSG) and this would make it clearly non-free which
is not the case for the good-evil-license.
My example was rather like: ... may not be used by people who are
evil enough to disregard licensing statements.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120530110514.gj27...@an3as.eu
