Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Don Armstrong writes: > > This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the > > two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep > > introducing this onerous term into their licenses is beyond me. > > Because they don't think it's fair for you to make changes that you've > shared with some people, without sharing them with everyone. What's > wrong with licensing cooperation instead of hoping for it?
No, that's not the problem. It's the desert island test (as Don Armstrong rightly points out). If you and your friend are on a desert island, and you share your changes with your friend, then this forces you to publish them to the world---even though you can't---and so you can't legally copy the program. It also fails the Chinese dissident test. Can a group of Chinese dissidents use the software and share it among their friends, complying with the license, but not bringing them into the risk of severe political repression if the Chinese government doesn't like what they say through their changes. It is essential to free software that you have the right to keep your changes private, and not be forced to share them with the world. It's not about what's "fair"; they make a license, they get to have whatever license they want, but it's not a free software license. Thomas
