Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>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 > > Right. That's the sort of conclusion I'm coming to. If it /is/ actually > effectively another criterion, then the right way to go about it is by > changing the DFSG. I don't think it really exists there at the moment, > and so I think trying to test packages against it is unreasonable.
I wouldn't object to calling it out in a specific point, but I think it's already a necessary conclusion from the existing points of the DFSG. You can push the privacy requirement off of one existing DFSG point only by putting it onto another. For example, you can push it off of point 1 by saying that it's not a distribution problem, only a modification problem. And then I say: I have to be able to prepare derivative works. Allowing me to do so only for certain derivatives (Say, those with Changelogs) is Free. Creating other conditions which I must fulfill is not Free -- whether those conditions require sending a dollar to the author, putting my name on a Wiki, publishing my changes, or sending my work to the initial author. So you say it doesn't kick in until there's distribution, at which point I go back to saying it's a fee. But if you insist on the right to freely derive new works and to freely distribute them, then you have to have the right to not distribute them, nor to do things which might prevent you from being able to make modifications -- like publishing that you're about to do so. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
