Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The case at hand here applies to an hypothetical cost which you may encoure if > you are violating the licence, or if upstream decides to become mad (or mad at > you) and try lawsuit harrasment. > > See the difference. One is an immediate and incontournable cost, while the > other is a potential cot which will only come into play at some very > improbably conditions in the majority of cases. >
I would point to an even more significant difference: the legal harrassment scenario cannot be avoided under any circumstances. No amount of legal boilerplate can protect you. You could have an agreement that says "I WON'T SUE YOU AND YOU WON'T SUE ME" a million times and in a million different ways, and a good lawyer will still find a way to bury you in paperwork for the rest of your life. A good *team* of lawyers could even go on a world tour, suing me repeatedly from every jurisdiction in the world. And someone who really hated me could set up a foundation of me-hunting lawyers who, generation after generation, sue and sue and sue my descendents. Journals could be born, on novel ways to sue me, and there could be a new Novel Prize for the best case brought against me each year.... But I digress. The point is that frivilous lawsuits are unpreventable, and thus we should not worry about them. It should not be news, much less a persuassive argument, to observe that agreeing to something opens one up to frivilous lawsuits. *Every* agreement leaves one open to frivilous lawsuits. So does every non-agreement. One might as well observe that the sun will go down tomorrow (gasp!) or that 3+2=5 (how odd!). -Lex
