Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> We have allowed clauses of the fairly narrow form "You must not do >> thing X with this work if it is illegal to do so in your jurisdiction" >> before, though I don't care for such stupid clauses. > > If we have, we shouldn't have. Such clauses fail the dissident test. I think you're right. I'm quite sure these have been allowed in the past. You have convinced me that they shouldn't be allowed. :-)
> Imagine that the work in question is an encryption tool, and that > <Insert Your Favorite Evil Oppressive State> has a local law > forbidding the possession and distribution of cryptographic > programs. Our friend the dissident nevertheless distributes the > program and afterwards miraculously escapes to the free world. > > If the license for the work has a "you-must-follow-local-law" clause > the dissident will now risk being sued by the author for breach of > license terms. Yes. That doesn't sound free, does it? > Free software must be free for dissidents too. > > > (Or instead of the encryption, it could be *any* piece of software, > and <IYFEOS> could have a local law against women engaging in software > distribution, or against distribution of any software not specifically > allowed by government censors). -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
