Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote about the bloody lunatic test: > > In that case and if the lunatic is truthful, no software under the GPL is > > free > > for 'you'. However, that's the fault of the lunatic and not the software or > > its licence. IMO the correct bugfix is to cancel out the lunatic. > > I could equally use that reasoning for the mandatory redistribution case. > No software under that license is free for you, but that's the fault of the > situation and not the license. The bugfix is to get off the island. > > It's pretty similar to the bloody lunatic test; the license says you > can't distribute unless you follow some condition (distribute source/send > changes off the island), but an external force having nothing to do with the > author of the software forces you not to follow the condition. Why is it > the fault of the external force in one case and the fault of the license in > the other?
One can spot whether it's the fault of the licence in 99% of problems by asking whether a change to the licence could remove the problem. A change to the licence could allow desert island hacking. No change to the licence could stop the bloody lunatic. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
