Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it. That doesn't >>imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations, >>allowing termination at any time according to the author's mood and whim. > > Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?
Right now, not much -- but it makes it harder for us to mistake non-free licenses for free ones. The patent situation sucks, but to take it as precedent would lead to there being no free software. >>The "Tentacles of Evil" test enunciates the need for this better (FAQ 9 A c): >> >>"Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now >>in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program: >>to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to >>expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to >>discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought >>out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to >>maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot >>allow even the author to take away the required freedoms!" > > Yes. Why does the test say this? Which aspect of the DFSG is represented > by this test? The DFSG give some guidelines for how to identify Free Software. They are not an exhaustive definition. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
