Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's >> >> possible to provide those modifications to the general public without >> >> being traceable. It doesn't seem any riskier to the dissident than the >> >> GPL's provisions. > >> >The dissident test is not about protecting dissidents from their evil >> >governments. It is about protecting them from copyright infringement >> >claims for sane things they did while in the grip of their evil >> >governments. The QPL allows some evil government to come after the >> >dissident for failure to disclose his works when under their control. > > Er, this quote from Brian seems to have turned the dissident test on its > head. It's not about protecting dissidents from copyright infringement > claims at all, it's about protecting them from being *drawn and quartered* > by their government as a byproduct of complying with the license. The > problem with the QPL is that it allows a government that monitors all > international correspondence to identify and murder those dissidents who > are complying with the license.
I think we have very different understandings of the dissident test -- mine has been shaped by continual objection that evil governments will just draw and quarter all the suspects anyway, or that dissidents won't comply with the license for safety reasons. >> The dissident test only makes any sense at all because it suggests that >> certain license provisions will result in bad things happening to the >> dissident if he complies with them. I am unconvinced that following the >> QPL's requirements would increase the risk any more than following the >> GPL's requirements. The GPL allows some evil government to come after >> the dissident if he thinks that it's too dangerous to give his source >> code to recipients of binaries. > > Given the above, there is a big difference between communicating source > code to those you're already choosing to distribute binaries to given > whatever secure means you have, and communicating source code to an > untrusted third party. I can't think of any danger arising from > distributing source with binaries that couldn't reasonably be addressed > by sanitizing the code in question to hide its authorship. Copyleft also > doesn't concern itself with contributors being branded idiot programmers > based on the quality of their code, and I find this to be entirely > sensible. The test itself, though, remains clear: 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 -- is non free. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
