Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > If you want that formulated as a "principle", as though that makes it > somehow better, I've already said: > > ] Sending your tax return, or your latest entries > ] in your diary, or whatever, to someone random and sending your changes > ] to some program to its author aren't comparable. One's never sensible > ] or reasonable, the latter's a good thing that we'd want to encourage > ] independent of whether it's required by the license. > > Which is to say: sending your tax return to someone when you change a > program is not a reasonable thing to do. As such, it's not a reasonable > thing for a license to require you to do.
Ok, so what you are saying then is that only reasonable requirements can be in a DFSG license. The DFSG of course has no such thing in its actual text; but I have no objection to adding it. Of course, now I need to understand why you think the forced-disclosure requirement is reasonable and the tax-return one isn't. I think that *both* are unreasonable, and for the same reason. You think one is reasonable and the other is not; please explain the basis for this determination.
