Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all > >> distributed source code be provided to the government. > > > >Except that there are no such governments. Get back to me when that > >actually happens. > > If there were such a government, would you question the GPL's freedom?
In that country, it would not be free. If enough of these governments that prohibit source were to pile up, then I would reconsider the freeness of the GPL. As a side note, I have to admit that some of this kind of thing already happens. Doom is not free in Brazil, and crypto didn't use to be free in France (and still isn't in the US, I would argue). > >> The dissident test isn't about dissidents, because it only applies in an > >> unrealistically narrow case. It's about privacy, and it should just say > >> that rather than bothering to mention the poor abused dissidents at all. > > > >I don't understand why you think the example is unrealistically > >narrow. I'm sure that the author of DeCSS would not be happy to have > >to make any more communications concerning DeCSS, considering the > >amount of legal harassment Jon Johansen suffered. > > The author of DeCSS has (if my recollection is correct) managed to stay > fairly anonymous despite the source being publically distributed. He'd > have nothing to fear if it had been under the QPL. Except that he might have been forced to communicate with the original authors. That communcation risks revealing his identity. As it is, he communicated _once_, well before people started looking for him. It is more difficult to covertly communicate now that everyone is looking for him. > >Phil Zimmerman might also have preferred to be a bit more anonymous. > >Moreover, the statute of limitations for what he has been charged with > >has run out, but copyright certainly hasn't. So if he had not > >complied with a software license, he could still be prosecuted for > >copyright infringement. > > People might prefer to stay anonymous. What does this have to do with > freedom? Are you saying that it would be DFSG-free for a person to have to personally identify themselves when modifying and distributing the software? Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
