Jeremy Hankins writes: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > This is called the "tentacles of evil" test: the license must be free, > > even if the copyright holder becomes hostile. Even if the copyright > > holder has an upstanding legal reputation, the license can't depend on > > that; copyright and companies can change hands. > > Yes, but (as you point out in your pine example) that can happen > regardless of license. There are some things we simply can't protect > against.
Indeed, but we can refuse to make it easier for a malicious actor or more costly for their victims (where those victims become such by using Debian). > The argument against choice-of-venue that I've heard is that it might be > a choice that has strange or restrictive law that heavily favors the > copyright holder. As far as I know (and I haven't read the whole > thread) no one's making that argument about California. And to a > certain extent, a nations laws always are able to remove freedoms that > free software would like to permit, and there's not a lot we can do > about it. Let's not tilt at windmills here. That would be the argument against choice-of-law clauses. The argument against choice-of-venue is that any licensor can drag a user into court in the licensor's preferred venue rather than a venue that the user would otherwise be subject to. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
