On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> The GPL discriminates against a slightly smaller set of
> >> dissidents. The GPL discriminates against people on desert islands
> >> who have a binary CD but not a source one.
> >
> >If worst comes to worst, we can use DFSG 10 to avoid this issue, and
> >use it to define the line where the dissident tests can no longer be
> >applied.
I don't think that's an issue; that's not against the spirit of the desert
island test. After all, that would be just as much of a problem if we
called it the "hungry programmer test"--it "discriminates" against hungry
programmers who don't have source, as well as anyone else who has binaries
and no source. The island doesn't enter into it.
The desert island test is meant as a sanity check for the set of restrictions
like "in order to {modify, distribute} this work, you must make contact with
this and that third party". I think it's much better thought of as a test
for DFSG#1 and #3 than #6 and #7.
> Of course, this mostly just turns the argument into one about
> weightings. Since these are mostly determined by personal opinion, it
> suggests that there isn't a correct place to draw the line. The only
> real suggestion I have is wider discussion in an attempt to gain a
> better understanding of how different people view the issue.
That's exactly the purpose of many of the discussions on d-legal. I'm not
sure what you think should change. Do you think the QPL discussion would be
more productive if crossposted to d-devel? (I think it would just annoy the
people who have chosen not to participate.)
--
Glenn Maynard
