On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 01:02:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> 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. > If we assume the existence of secure communication within the country, > then assuming the existence of secure communication to outside the > country isn't an excessive leap. The QPL allows anonymous public > distribution. The act of distribution itself is often traceable, and encryption is often a red flag. Particularly when you have a large, totalitarian government with strict border control. The dissident test is a stand-in for numerous other scenarios in which the cost (risk) of forced publication is high enough that it will effectively deter potential contributors from participating in the community. And yes, arguments can be made that some of the GPL requirements similarly deter contribution under certain circumstances. The difference seems to be quantitative, not qualitative; the GPL sought to achieve a balance point between the rights of users(/modifiers) and those of authors, and I believe our efforts to draw the non-free line for Debian must be informed by this same principle. This does make for a weaker, more subjective criterion; but this is why debian-legal denizens are constantly harping on the fact that the DFSG are guidelines, not laws. :) > I don't necessarily object to the point that the dissident test is > trying to make (not that I necessarily agree with it), but I do object > to its phrasing. It's obviously more concerned with banning forced > distribution of source than it is with the safety of dissidents. It > should just be replaced with "Forced distribution of source to anyone > other than the recipient is non-free", and then we can have a nice big > argument about whether that should be in the DFSG or not. Sounds good. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
