Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot > > require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people > > use it or for what purpose, etc). > > Instinctively, this seems a reasonable test to apply to a license. > > Can anyone think of any currently-accepted-as-DFSG-free licenses that > would fail this test? > > If not, I propose we consider adding this to our battery of tests; maybe > we could call it the "Towns Test", which is nicely alliterative. :)
I think the principle is a good one. Heretofore, our "tests" have been thought experiments which demonstrate why a particular license term would be harmful. I would suggest reformulating this in such terms; as it sits, it's really just like an extra DFSG section.
