Hello,
I'm confronted with a very special case for which I've written a
metaphor. I'd like your opinion on this case.
Imagine that using software is like baking cookies. A free/open source
cookie specialist, company A, distributes recipes that are free in the
sense of the AGPL: everybody is allowed to bake those cookies, and the
consumer is allowed to get the recipe along with the cookies.
Suppose that company B uses the recipe to bake cookies, and they sell
those cookies to company C. This is perfectly OK, and company C is
allowed to get the original recipe from company A, along with all the
extra instructions applied by company B. This is how one should
interprete the AGPL: company B is not obliged to pay company A for the
use of the recipe. But if company B changes the original recipe or
integrates it in a larger recipe, this enhanced recipe is to be
distributed under the same AGPL license.
Company C can now consume the cookies, but they can also use the
finished cookies to create another product, for instance: cookie spread.
This may seem an odd example, but I'm Belgian, and cookie spread is a
Belgian specialty. Company C doesn't use the recipe from company A, nor
any extended recipe from company B; they are using the finished cookies
as an ingredient for another product. For instance: they crunch the
cookies, add some extra ingredients, and put them in a jar.
In this scenario, company C doesn't enter in the AGPL: they may have
received AGPL recipes from company A and/or B, but they aren't using
these recipes. As a result, they can sell cookie spread to consumers
without sharing their own recipe.
So far, so good.
Now suppose that nuts are part of the ingredients list of the recipe
created by Company A. To protect cookie consumers, Company A adds an
extra term to the AGPL: as long as there are traces of nuts down the
production line, all products /that may contain traces of nuts/ must
retain the notice /"may contain traces of nuts"/.
Suppose that this notice can be added in a way that all the tests
mentioned in the DFSG are met:
(1) the equivalent of the message "contains traces of nuts" is
automatically part of all the cookies in a non-intrusive way. The cookie
doesn't yell "Caution, I may contain nuts" before you bite it, but if
you want to find out if it contains nuts, you can analyze the cookie (or
the cookie spread) for the presence of nuts in a very simple way. Some
operations will remove the nuts; in that case, the message will
disappear: no nuts = no message required. In any case: an extra
operation is needed to remove the message, so the cookie passes the
Desert Island test: there's no obligation that is impossible to meet;
(2) the message doesn't reveal the identity of the modifier, so it
passes the Dissident test;
(3) the message is there to inform the consumers, it's there to help
them, to protect them, so it passes the Tentacles of Evil test.
In my opinion the extra term takes away one freedom, but adds an
important additional freedom: the freedom of information.
Company A makes the recipe a little bit "un-free" because company B nor
company C have the right to remove the /"may contain traces of nuts"/
notice. But imagine that you would grant a cookie (spread) producer the
freedom to remove the information "contains traces of nuts" from the
list of ingredients. Such a freedom could lead to the death of a
consumer who is allergic to nuts.
It's hard to imagine that this would be the kind of freedom Debian
pursues. I'd say this doesn't pass the Tentacles of Evil test, because
intentionally or unintentionally removing such a message could harm a
certain group of people.
Note that the message isn't discriminating people allergic to nuts: it's
not saying they shouldn't eat cookies containing nuts; it only says the
cookies "may contain traces of nuts". It's up to the consumer to decide
whether or not he wants to take the risk eating such a cookie.
It's my opinion that in this case one freedom---the freedom of the
potential abuser: he who wants to hide information---should be weighed
against another freedom---the freedom of the potential user: the person
who desires to be informed. It is my personal belief that in this case,
/the freedom to be informed/ outweighs /the freedom to hide the truth/.
You may argue that this is completely different in software, but to me,
the freedom of information of a consumer is a basic right, be it in the
context of a computer recipe written in a computer language, or in the
context of a cookie recipe written for human eyes. I plead against
obfuscation and secrecy, in favor of openness and transparency.
I would like to hear your opinion on this case: If you'd eat a cookie
based on a free recipe, would you prefer the freedom to find out if the
cookie contains a harmful ingredient? Or would you rather die so that a
cookie producer has the freedom to hide the fact that the cookie
contains such an ingredient? If you'd rather die to protect the abuser's
freedom, who would benefit most from your death, the community or an
Evil Cookie Producer? Would that matter to you?
I'm looking forward to your responses!