On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the > requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on > request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is > grounded in the DFSG, and see that information added to the FAQ.
I agree that the "unpublished" issue warrants its own test. [The "unpublished" test: If the license tries to restrict what a person does with the software when it's not being distributed, it's not a free license.] In the U.S., copyright licenses [probably] don't have standing to control what happens with unpublished works, so maybe this issue hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. > It can be argued that 6c requires the developer to pay something on > demand from the original developer (DFSG 1) or is discrimination > against a significant group (DFSG 5) and the task of political > opposition (DFSG 6), although some don't think that's convincing. It seems to me that DFSG#6, especially when taken in context of DFSG#4, forbids restrictions on what a person can do with non-distributed copies. More specifically, restrictions on free software developers -- unless they fit in categories which the DFSG accepts -- are themselves discrimination against a field of endeavor [free software development]. [It's certainly not like other users of this software will be violating the copyright because of this clause.] > > Given that this issue seems to be one of the most common > > Freeness issues that isn't covered in the DFSG, at some point it > > should be added as an additional Guideline. > > Maybe. Where did these tests originate? There's no reference in the > FAQ. I think they were developed in response to frequently arising issues. That said, I think the dissident test and the desert island test should be replaced with a better test. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00181.html -- Raul
