Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Um ... who would you copy it to? You've already shared the changes > with your friend. There's nobody else -- and once there is, you can > give it to them, too.
What? The point is that the license requires you to make them publically available. I don't know what that means, do you? If it means "must take any positive step to make them available", then it fails the desert island test. > Has anybody tried running the desert island test past a judge? I > expect that most judges would start by turning up the ends of their > mouth, opening their mouth, and guffawing. You must have completely misunderstood the desert island test. It's a rubric *WE* use to measure whether a license is a free software license. If the license depends on being "in contact" with the rest of the world, then it fails the desert island test. > The code has to be published. Use of the code does not. If you give > your modifications to the FSF and say "Please publish this > anonymously", and they do, then you have complied with the license. This doesn't still doesn't pass the Chinese dissident test. The message I want to share with my fellow friends in the underground might well need my name to be meaningful. Also, some messages of a potential dissident are in their purpose by publicity. For example, a message in software which conveys the meaning "work stoppage in factory X on Jan. 10" is defeated if it must be published, whether there is a name or not. > Besides which, the net effect of all that "deployment" language is to > say "If we can find out that you shared it with some people, then you > have to share it with everyone." If the mechanism of the sharing is > such that it's kept a secret, then you don't have to worry about > sharing it, nor the consequences of not sharing it. Well, that's not what the license says, is it? The question here is about people who will voluntarily comply with the license: does the license restrict what they are doing? Thomas
