On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:11:55 -0500, Manoj wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> severity 317365 wishlist > thanks > > Hi, > > I am not sure I can follow what the object of this report is, > and I certainly do not see why a serious priority is justified. What > exactly is the potential for litigation here in policy? ..does "SCO vs IBM" ring a bell? http://groklaw.net/ ..would you survive what IBM is enduring|enjoying right now? I'd be bankrupt, because I'm a one man firm. To me, that's pretty serious. I understand most DD and many DU are working in small firms even by Norwegian standards? (Our average size firm is 7 workers.) > The bug number referenced offers no further explanations either. > > From what I can gather, the objection in some sense seems to > be on the word "agreement". ..correct, adding " agreement" to "license" yields "license agreement", which is legalese for contract. A license is not a contract, a license is "one person giving 'mankind' permission to do something that is otherwise forbidden", while a contract "is (at least) 2 parties agreeing to do something", "good or bad" is outside the contractual scope. > Not arguing the merits of that claim (personally, I would like to see > some better justification for all this furor) -- the policy document > does not include the word agreement, ..precisely, and precisely why Don summarily closed #317365: DA> Whether or not the GPL is a contract or not is dependent upon the DA> language and actualization of local law. If the license is just a DA> license under local law, then a license it will remain. If it's a DA> contract, then it will remain a contract. It is not the place of DA> Debian Policy to attempt to define the manner in which local law is DA> to be interpreted. DA> DA> Thus, this bug report is spurious, and is being summarily closed. ..Don is _not_ in violation with the letter of DPM or DP here, AFAICT. ..he and the KDE project _is_ however in conflict with both his own, KDEP's, F/OSS etc and Debian's interests AFAIK them, when he advances Microsoft's argument and interests like above here. > so surely whatever the problem is, if any, it does not warrant a > serious bug on policy. ..here I disagree, we (F/OSS|Debian) open ourselves as a long term litigation targets, unwarrantedly, by letting Microsoft lobby in this confusing language into Debian packages, and by _not_ mentioning the Debian position or policy in the DPM on whether or not the GPL etc are licenses or contracts. ..this (and #317359 ) bug has _no_ "tech" effect. ..it does however have a potentially expensive long term legal and financial effect, as the very language "license argeement" confuses the distinction between eg the GPL as a licence, and Microsoft's "End User License Agreement", which _is_ a contract. ..if we just "summarily" close this bug as "spurious", we will be forced to pay our own lawyers for teaching the courts and all jury members how to distinguish a contract from a licence, and, "why case law from all those who gave up and went bankrupt is irrelevant here in" our own cases. ..also undermined, is our use of copyright law and the GPL in court, "because" we "tell a different story to this Court than" we "tell to the end users." Microsoft is much more comfortable litigating against us with contract law rather than copyright law. > Secondly, I am not sure that Debian technical policy is the proper > mechanism to disseminate Legal advice to developers -- or even best > practice. ..here I believe we agree the DPM should at the very least point to a resource and suggest a minimum standard. ;o) ..and the discussion of this bug probably belongs on D-legal and Groklaw? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
