On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:10:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > > > As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients > > > > automatically receive the right to modify and distribute unless > > > > otherwise explicitly specified. Then a simple "Copyright (C) 2000 > > > > Steve Langasek" would be free. > > > > The difference between this and the prior example is that in the > > > first case, the *government* has additional rights over the > > > software, whereas in the second case, it is the *author* who has > > > lesser rights over (control of) the software. Yes, in this > > > hypothetical jurisdiction, a mere copyright statement would be free; > > > but we are concerned about freedom at the international level, so we > > > need to take a "least common denominator" look at the rights of > > > copyright holders. > > > So if the lowest common denominator (i.e. the law in all countries) > > became > > > "If you distribute something under the GPL, you must give the > > government a copy" > > > would the GPL be free? > > As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what > we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requires us to send > the government a copy *every time* someone downloads), I think we would
And even that, i think is not acceptable. Already our current policy to inform the US governement of every contribution a member makes is an dangerous privacy concern. And if you would go the chinese dissident way (or maybe the iraqui freedom figther way :), a maintainer could get in trouble over this reporting. Friendly, Sven Luther