On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:28:24AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The closest I see is the mention of a fee in #1; a "restriction" might > be construed as a "fee". However, if it is just about fees, there is > no need for a new test.
DFSG#1 says "may not restrict". I believe the mention of fees is an example of a restriction that "may not restrict" is intended to prohibit. Of course, I don't think we should take it to an extreme, claiming that DFSG#1 doesn't allow any restrictions of any kind; that's silly (not only would the GPL fail--the BSD license would, too). I do believe that there are plenty of non-free restrictions on distribution which are not "fees". For example, "You may only redistribute this program on Monday" isn't a fee, but it's clearly (I hope!) a non-free restriction. > Good question. I actually am not convinced the dictator test even > describes non-freeness accurately. I would be okay, for example, if the > license says you must smile when you upload a new version, but since I would. A free license has no place telling me to contort my face, yell "I am He-man", smell a flower, run a marathon, flip off my boss, or any other ridiculous, irrelevant and pointless things. -- Glenn Maynard
