Michael K. Edwards writes: > Anyway, as to personal jurisdiction -- this is a legal principle lost > in the mists of time, adapted in modern times to fit the realities of > commerce without personal contact. A "choice of venue" clause is not > In sum, trying to shoehorn any of the warranty / liability / breach of > contract calculus into a box marked "fee", in order to test it against > DFSG #1, is almost as silly as calling it "discrimination" for the > purposes of #5 or #6. This is all about risk management, and where > the risks are not routine, I agree with Sean that relying on risk > assessment by a self-selected crew of ideologues with brazen contempt > for real-world law and no fiduciary relationship to anyone is not too > swift -- whether or not they have law degrees (or university chairs in > law and legal history). Not all debian-legal participants deserve to > be tarred with that brush, but the ones who do are numerous enough and > loud enough to give me pause.
All rambling and ad hominem attacks aside, DFSG analysis is not at all about risk; it is about determining whether or not the license imposes non-free restrictions or requirements on licensees. Argument from authority will not change that, particularly since it is unclear that anyone has -- or will ever have -- relevant experience in law or fiduciary duty you specified. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
