Sean Kellogg wrote: > 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?
Situations where it's possible and practical, but is still a serious imposition. Email costs $10 a message. Or requires a day's travel to another town. You can think of others easily. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
