Adam McKenna writes: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: >> Please go back and read the rest of this thread, since your arguments >> were previously made and countered. You argue that since choice of >> venue is a small (or putatively reasonable) cost or form of >> discrimination, it can be ignored; the DFSG do not allow that. > > It's not a cost, it's a risk. There are plenty of other risks that we take > when we distribute software, that we consider acceptable. What makes this > one unacceptable?
As you pointed out, choice of venue does not introduce the risk of being sued: it adds to the expected cost of being sued. How do you express choice of venue as a risk? > As far as discrimination, it's only a form of discrimination insofar as the > ability to sue discriminates against those for whom defending themselves will > be a financial hardship. This is a problem with the law, not the license. Would a license that prohibits use by a fascist regime be acceptable, since what makes a regime fascist is its law rather than the license? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
