Hi Ken!
You wrote:
> > > consider this: if the bloody murderer will kill you if you reveal
> > > your identity (dissident test) the license demanding you do so is
> > > nonfree. But if the bloody murderer will kill you if you distribute
> > > source, the license demanding you do so is fine.
> > >
> > > What principle can possibly be used to get that?
> >
> > The principle that there are certain freedoms essential in a software
> > work for that work to be called free.
>
> The point of the desert island (and bloody murderer) examples is to analyze
> *whether* a restriction is free. If in order to do this you need a principle
> which already defines what restrictions cannot be called free, then the
> desert island test is completely useless. You have to decide whether the
> restriction is free before you can even try to apply it.
Exactly. We consider requirements to send changes non-free. The Desert
Island Test doesn't change that in any way, it merely illustrates _why_ we
think it's non-free (namely, because we think that free software should
also be free for people in isolated situations).
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bas Zoetekouw | Sweet day, so cool, so calm, so bright, |
|--------------------| The bridall of the earth and skie: |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The dew shall weep thy fall tonight; |
+--------------------| For thou must die. |
+-----------------------------------------+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
