On Monday 12 July 2004 11:45 am, Don Armstrong wrote: > While the imagery of a computer programmer sitting on a lonely desert > isle hacking away with their solar powered computer, drinking > coconuts, and recieving messages in bottles might be silly, the rights > that such a gedanken is protecting are anything but.
Not to argue against the intent of the Desert Island Test, but at least in the United States, such a freedom is provided by the law/courts, not the license. If the license require sending the modifications back upstream, and sending is impossible for reasons including, but not limited to, residence on a deserted island without means of communication, the doctrine of impossibility/impracticability comes in to play. My contracts professor is always quick to note that nothing is impossible (and then rants on about quantum physics and elephants walking through walls), so impracticability is the more "preferred" term. Regardless, the freedom to not comply with the license (if compliance is not possible) is already available in the U.S. Courts (and I imagine any other common law jurisdiction). So, assuming a US centric view for a moment, who/what are we trying to protect this this test beyond our poor socially-isolated programmer? -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 2nd Year - UW Law School c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://www.livejournal.com/users/economyguy/ <-- lazy mans blog "When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything as if it were a nail." -- Abraham Maslow
