Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That's interesting. I propose the following license then. Is it free
> in your opinion? It doesn't technically violate any DFSG clauses, but I
> think it's self-evidently non-free, because it takes away fundamental
> freedoms.
>
> Anyone ("you") may use, copy, modify, and distribute copies (modified or
> unmodified) of this software, provided that:
> (1) You must never say or write anything negative about the authors.
> (2) You agree never to exercise your fair use, fair dealing, or other
> similar rights regarding this software.
> (3) You agree not to use this program at all, in any way, without
> agreeing to this license.
> (3) You agree never to sue anyone over anything.
> (4) You agree to allow the authors to search your home and person
> without notice at any time.
> (5) You agree to waive your right to trial by jury in all criminal or
> civil cases brought against you.
If you want this to be a licence, rather than a (common law) contract,
which would probably require a signature or some communication between
the parties, then you should probably phrase it differently, perhaps
along the lines of:
(1) This licence terminates if you ever say or write ...
You would then have something practically equivalent to a licence
subject to arbitrary termination.
Incidently, and irrelevantly, if you wanted to make a contract like
this, and you wanted it to work in practice, then apart from getting a
signature on it you would probably also have to specify a sum of money
that should be paid by the licensee if the licensee for some reason
can't or doesn't fulfil the specified conditions. Otherwise it might
be very hard for a court to assess damages in the case of
non-performance of point 3, for example, and the uncertainty would be
a burden for both parties. IANAL, of course.
