* Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040721 00:51]: > >Since the DFSG itself doesn't distinguish between the two in that > >clause, the latter is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. > > So where does this stop? Just about every current free license out > there will have clauses that may clash with national laws > somewhere. Be reasonable here, please: "effective discrimination" is a > very shaky thing to start claiming...
Why shaky? When an clause results in discriminating against people, groups or fields of endeavor (of course within the limits of free software[1]) then the licence is non-free. Why should we make a difference between explicit prohibitons and things that effectively prohibit? Can I replace a veto against using my software in an nuclear plant by a condition that when used in a nuclear plant one must publish all security measures of the plant and make the licence thus "free" without changing who if effectively allowed to use it and who not? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link [1] Just to name the obvious. We have a context here, which has to be observed before trying to direct it into absurdity. This context is free software, i.e. each program is accompanied by its source and the authors are not prohibiting the rights one needs for it.
