Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >This is why DFSG#5 and #6 are fairly useless, in practice. I can't think of >any license that actually explicitly said "may not be used for bioweapons >research", clauses that clearly fall under those guidelines. Any less >direct arguments tend to reduce to absurdity almost immediately, eg. "the >GPL discriminates against the field of creating proprietary software"--it >certainly does, and almost all licenses "discriminate" against people who >don't want to comply with those terms, but we don't read DFSG#6 that way.
The most obvious examples (and presumably the sort of thing that was being held in mind when those clauses were written) are things like "Not for commercial use", or the wide variety of fuckups in academic-only licensing[1]. [1] Today's excellence is a program that requires me to post a signed agreement to Brazil before I can even download the damn thing. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
