On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 06:25:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:51:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Not really an objection, but for completeness I think some practical > > examples > > of things which fail this test should be added to the FAQ as well. > > I'll try and think of some.
>From memory, the genesis of this test came from discussions about RT3's "if we see it and like it, it's ours"[1] licence clause, which extended beyond the realm of things a copyright holder could do. So that would be one possible example (probably with fictional names). The "Pet a cat" licence would be a good example. One thing I just realised with this test -- it would be a large argument against attempts to enforce patent and trademark issues in a copyright permission grant. If a copyright licence says "thou shalt not take our name in vain, or we'll take away your permission to modify the software" -- they're effectively coercing the user into giving up rights they would otherwise have in order to get the grant of permission, which I feel strongly is non-free. [1] I think Best Practical have rebutted that interpretation; nevertheless that was roughly how it was interpreted when first presented. - Matt
