Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But the dissident test would only be an issue in jurisdictions with > >> hostile governments. > > > >Which happens to be all jurisdictions. Some of them don't shoot you, > >just fine you or put you in jail (e.g. DMCA). But every jurisdiction > >has bad laws. > > Then the dissident has already lost. Under the QPL, the government > can get the copyright holder to ask for a copy of the code.
That is just a small wrinkle on an already non-free clause. > Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all > distributed source code be provided to the government. Except that there are no such governments. Get back to me when that actually happens. > >> Which suggests (again) that the dissident test doesn't actually > >> represent the statement you're trying to make. > > > >Come again? > > The dissident test isn't about dissidents, because it only applies in an > unrealistically narrow case. It's about privacy, and it should just say > that rather than bothering to mention the poor abused dissidents at all. I don't understand why you think the example is unrealistically narrow. I'm sure that the author of DeCSS would not be happy to have to make any more communications concerning DeCSS, considering the amount of legal harassment Jon Johansen suffered. Phil Zimmerman might also have preferred to be a bit more anonymous. Moreover, the statute of limitations for what he has been charged with has run out, but copyright certainly hasn't. So if he had not complied with a software license, he could still be prosecuted for copyright infringement. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
