[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > First, thanks for not CCing me on this, as i asked. > > >Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Also, one of the clauses you have problems with, the "court of venue", > >> if waived, might limit their possibilities to defend against people not > >> respecting the licence > > > >That is the whole problem with the venue clause. It makes it too easy > >for the original developers to harass distributors. > > Well, only if you live in a country whose legal system allows suing > for every ridicoulous reason, provided you have the found to pay for > it. A court of venue outside of the US is rather more a guarantee of > real justice than a threat, as i think non-US judges would be much > less inclined to allow bullshit-claims to proceed, or judge results > which only depends on the amount of money at ones disposal. But > then IANAL, and i may be dreaming or something too. > > Still, in this matter we need to find a balance between the right of the > developer (who don't wish people to use the software in disrespect of the > licence) and the wish of users who want to do modifications, and as long as > they respect the licence, should not be furthermore molested. > > The fear of harassment only comes for someone who is willingly breaking the > licence, and seriously, do we want to encourage those ?
The point is that you can easily harass people who _aren't_ breaking the license. > And finally, i know the upstream authors personnally, and i also understand > their situation enough to know that they won't engage in any such harrasment, > even if it was possible. 75 years + life is a long time. Copyrights can change hands many times during that period. That is why debian-legal came up with the "Tentacles of Evil" test. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
