Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My impression is that you are discrediting the Debian project by
> > repeating unproven claims of a single person that once did come up with
> > anti-social demands on Debian legal.
>
> See my other email. And if you are curious, i think the latest thread
> concernign choice-of-venue is :
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00036.html
>
> A choice quote there, in the first reply, from on of debian's Release Managers
> is :
>
> The problem with choice of venue clauses is that anyone who accepts the
> license must also accept the burden of defending themselves against charges
> of license violation in a court which is likely to have an implicit bias in
> favor of the copyright holder: first because courts will often favor, or can
> often be manipulated to favor, a party to the suit who is local to them; and
> second because the cost of litigation is frequently unequal when one party
> is geographically much closer than the other.
>
> There is more too, and i am sure i saw the current DPL, Branden Robinson,
> voicing itself against choice of venue also, but i can't find back the email
> among the many hundred if not thousand concerning this subject.
>
> So, again, you are being uninformed or deceptive when you speak about a single
> person.
You just proved that it's you who is uninformed....
You constantly repeat this single text from Debian Legal, but you avoid
to do some research on the background.
If you did, you would know that Debian accepts the CDDL as being compliant
with their goals. Note that I did already write this about a month ago.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
