Arg, another poster who didn't CC me as asked. Well, let's see if the mail-followup-to will work next time, altough since i have use lynx for this reply, there is no chance it will work.
>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> The reproach which is being done is twofold : > >Perhaps two separate threads would be justified. I'm only replying on >the first "reproach". > >> c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the >> initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, >> then you must supply one. > >> Now, the clause which causes problem is the 6c, which states that upstream >> might also want to get those works linked with the software. I understand >> that >> this may be considered non-free, but let's go over the DFSG points one by >> one, >> and not start with discutable chinese disident or desert island stuff which >> only muddy the water. > >As I see it 6c is a serious privacy problem. Perhaps the requirement >for privacy is not directly implied by any of DFSG, but I can't >imagine people being very happy with the requirement to let the >initial developers know how the software is being used. Do you think >upstream really need this clause? I asked upstream, but didn't get a response yet. Since it is french holydays time, i doubt i will get one for the next weeks, if ever. Still i question the unsupported claim of a privacy breach you make. What is the privacy problem here ? And i don't want to hear about chinese dissidents or desert islands ? And do you consider that violation of a licence is also admissible in fear of breaching privacy ? Friendly, Sven Luther
