* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040720 04:06]: > DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream on > request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence.
> How much of > this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all, you lose > nothing if you give it to upstream, so it doesn't cost you. Wow, this is quite a strong assertion. Especially after many people describes situations where it cost you and/or brings you in risk of costs. > DFSG 5) and 6) it was claimed that one of those is broken by the desert island > or chinese dissident tests, i have seen no consensus as a quick overview of > the thread prior to my involvement shows. I personally dispute those claims as > not only irrealistic, but also as not applying here, since the request should > be done nominally. What do you mean by "nominally"? That when I'm "initial deleveloper" and want to stop someone on an desert island from using my software, I have to know his name before? Or give an evil goverment a reguest they shall under my name place each residents name on it and give it to him? For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in countries that impose an embargo or export restrictions on countries the "initial developer" is in. Consider something like a ssl-library was under this licence in the times where those were more strictly handled and the "initial developer" was outside the USA. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
