Bernard R> Link writes: >* 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?
Then that would clearly be discrimination - you've given explicitly different rights to different people. That's not the "effective" discrimination that we've been talking about, where people in some countries/circumstances have their freedom curtailed by local issues that are _not_ the fault of the software author's choice of license. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten." -- Malcolm Ray
