On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 12:35:11PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
The bloody lunatic test does have an exact application, by the way. Just
name him a "bloody lawyer" using software patents. Being hell-bent on
eradicating GPL stays unchanged.
Having a country non-free doesn't make a license non-free. In the chinese
dissident test the user chooses to fight against the bloody murderer (who
wears an uniform) -- he breaks unrelated laws, yet does not breach the
license in any way.
Let's say, you make a game where the player tosses rotten eggs into prophet
Muhammad's face. It's obviously illegal in quite a few countries -- and
there are zounds of bloody murderers who would want to chop your head off.
Yet, is the game non-free?
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
