Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > > >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. > > I'm also unconvinced by these examples. The first sounds like "A free > software license should allow for small groups to avoid lawsuits while > breaking the law",
You might honestly believe that you are not infringing the patent but that you will get sued anyway if Company X finds out what you are doing, and you can't afford to get sued even though you are fairly confident that you would win if you had sufficient legal resources to defend yourself. But that's not the point. The point is is that you have privacy, which you may use for legal or illegal purposes, and if anyone wants to know what you're using your privacy for, then that's none of their business. > and the GPL can damage a wide range of perfectly > legal business plans. Yes, but only business plans that involve distributing the GPL software while denying certain freedoms to the recipients of the GPL software, or at least that's the idea. It seems to me that the "dissident test" is just a weird way of saying something like: DFSG 11. Licence Must Not Invade Privacy of Individuals or Groups If it's too hard to come up with a realistic example of a group that everyone agrees is deserving of privacy then perhaps it's best to just leave it as an abstract requirement.
