[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>If it makes you feel happier, consider the tests to be "proposed amendments >>to the DFSG". Do you feel that the dictator test does not reasonably >>diagnose a non-free licence, or is your objection merely that it's not a >>straightforward restatement of the DFSG? > > 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 > this has nothing to do with copyright it would fail the Dictator Test. > To convince me that the smiles requirement is non-free, you will have to > convince me that this is sufficiently onerous to be a "fee". I wouldn't > reject it just because smiling has nothing to do with copyright, and > I wouldn't reject it because people have a fundamental freedom to > be grouches.
It falls in the same category as "you must pet a cat". (DFSG FAQ at http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html , point 12b.) If you want a more specific example, it would discriminate against people who are unable to move their mouth, and who operate a computer only through an eyetracker or similar device; therefore, it fails DFSG 5. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
