Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
>> aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally held
>> unenforcable?
>
>Probably, but you're still working against the author's wishes in that
>circumstance. I'd rather a licence that didn't try and compel me to break
>the law in the first place.
If the author wishes us to break the law, then I don't think we have any
obligation to follow the author's wishes.
>> Really that's a user education problem. People should be told what the
>> risks are ("This software may contain patents that you do not hold a
>> license to", for instance) and spend some time thinking about them
>> before exercising any of the freedoms we provide.
>
>I thought the purpose of the DFSG and such were so that, for anything in
>main, you knew you could exercise all of the freedoms listed in the DFSG
>without fear of getting a summons. Now you're saying we're back to the
>"before doing anything, read debian/copyright" system? No thanks.
Oh, come on. That's never been true. Pretty much every program we ship
requires you to read the license before distributing modified versions.
>Patents are a separate issue, and I wish you'd stop using them as a means of
>justifying other abuses of freedom.
Why? It's the world we live in. There are certain freedoms that we
simply can't provide, no matter how much we'd like to.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
