Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >A hostile government can also declare that the subversive code can not > >be distributed because it says so; that's not the point of that test. > >Please see http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html, 9 A(a). > > Did you mean 9A(b)? "Any requirement for sending source modifications to > anyone other than the recipient of the modified binary---in fact any > forced distribution at all, beyond giving source to those who receive a > copy of the binary---would put the dissident in danger." The very fact > that he's a dissident puts him in danger, and the hostile government can > declare that the source must be provided regardless of what the license > says. I still can't imagine a practical situation where this would be an > issue. If the dissident is likely to be put in danger then he is already > doing something worse than breaching copyright law.
The "dissident test" does sound very silly the way it is described in the FAQ. Perhaps the FAQ should give a realistic example as well as the memorable but silly "dissident" example. A realistic example might be a group of people doing something that someone else might consider to be an infringement of their patent; to avoid problems they want to avoid letting other people know what they are doing. Or they might want to avoid revealing a perfectly legal business plan. In general, a free software licence should allow privacy of a group.
