>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.
Well, if they really do that, it is not the dissidents obeying to the upstram request to provide sources, but already upstream contacting him to place the request in the first place which is putting him in danger. And before upstream can place the request, he needs to know about the modification, which means the dissident already somehow breached his privacy and informed the world about the patch. And no, a public call on TV doesn't count, since there is no way you can prove that said dissident or even the desert island ihabitant, has actually seen it. I suppose a legal receivable request would be either a plain letter send in such a way that you have proof of distribution, or a asking through a court or something, in which case the privacy is lost anyway. And if you find a way the request can reach the dissident without compromising its privacy, it would be hypcricy to not extend the same way for the sending of the source to the requester. Friendly, Sven Luther
