Raul Miller wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
The big deal here is that if someone sues Adobe, Adobe
doesn't have to incur huge legal fees defending themselves.
Since it's free software, why
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:21:44PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If that is were actually what they wrote, I think a lot more people here
would be willing to accept it. E.g, they could have said:
Any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement
shall be brought in the
On 1/30/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't this cause problems when the code is forked? If someone in
France forks the code, then they have to travel to Scotland to defend
themselves against any frivolous lawsuits. That allows the original
licensors a bit more control over
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
You can still claim that the court in question does not have
jurisdiction over the parties.
You can claim that the moon is cheese too, if you want.[1] The point
is that in order for the court to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:17:47 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Here's the attribution version:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode
6.5 This Licence is governed by the law of Scotland and the parties
accept the
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:39:33PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If it's not a copyleft:
* the Scotland-venue clause in the original license only applies to claims
against the original licensor of the original software
* the French forker uses a license without that clause for his own
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
Beyond that: if Adobe files in a CA court, even without this clause
a person is still going to have to deal with that situation somehow.
And if the action is specious, the person can simply dispute that
the license is relevant to the action.
The
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:01:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
DFSG. The usual
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
here we have the most perfect example imaginable of a license being offered
by a copyright holder with a known and public history of hostility towards
information freedom, and people still don't acknowledge that there's a risk
here. It's flabbergasting!
The point is not
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:18:32 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
I think DFSG#5 was written not because of this, but because of
licenses that exclude some uses of the software, e.g. nuclear weapons
factories, animal torture and things that people dislike.
That is DFSG#6, not #5.
--
:-( This
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference is that without this clause, the first step is to claim
that the court in question does not have jurisdiction over the
parties.[1] With this clause, before you can get the court to agree
that California is an improper venue, you
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference is that without this clause, the first step is to claim
that the court in question does not have jurisdiction over the
parties.[1] With this clause, before you can get the court to
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:18:55AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
To be more specific, we generally consider choice-of-venue non-free when
it
applies to suits brought by the copyright holder (/licensor) against
other
people.
It's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant?
Well, yes. It's just something that a few people here invented, but
Another dose of pain to plonked Miller and other FSF's lackeys (kudos
to Wallace for calling the bluff)...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey plonked Miller, breaking news...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL
On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote:
There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant?
Yeah, since the dissident test has
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote:
There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant?
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote:
There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted
in doing things
Raul Miller writes:
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:01:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
DFSG. The usual
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one
instigating the lawsuit.
So what
Raul Miller writes:
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
should get to override the venue in
On 1/29/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On that line of reasoning, people who don't live in California are,
too. But we both know how weak arguing on DFSG#5 tends to be.
I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the
software indicate an EULA, since simple
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 03:18:32PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 1/29/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the
software indicate an EULA, since simple copyright can not, in theory,
restrict the use of software
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see
More pain to plonked Miller and other FSF's lackeys.
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to stress...
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:42:22AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 1/26/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people
who live far away from Santa Clara County, California, USA and thus
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The default rules of law are irrelevant to a license's freedom. A
license with no choice of venue does not force you to go to New York
to prosecute a lawsuit any more than it forces you to pet a cat or pay
your traffic tickets.
In practice a nation's
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;
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit? The difference
in cost to a corporation like Adobe with a standing legal team between
me suing them in their home court and me suing them in my home court
is negligible. The difference in cost to
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey plonked Miller, gratis copies also fall under the first sale
(for which the trigger is nothing but ownership of a
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins writes:
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
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Plonk doesn't mean let's ignore the person's argument and then
What argument? Edwards has wasted enough time on you in the past and
you still don't grok a simple fact that IP licenses are contracts
which is not akin to lottery or other state
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit? The difference
in cost to a corporation like Adobe with a standing legal team between
me suing them in their home court and me suing them in my home court
is
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What argument?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
Plonk means I'm putting this person in my kill file ...
Obviously I didn't killfile you.
Ok.
When your words don't mean what we understand, we won't
understand
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What argument?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
Edwards has already explained it to you. A question of law is
addressed by likelihood of success on that portion
Hey plonked Miller, breaking news...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What argument?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
Edwards has
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The difference in cost to Adobe between bringing harrassment suits
against 200 mirror operators separately in their respective
jurisdictions, and bringing one suit against all two hundred in
Adobe's home
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:35:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
We could, but does the DFSG require it?
This is backtracking the discussion: we've already been over this.
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are other, non-malicious
reasons for choice-of-venue, as others have pointed out.
On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are non-malicious reasons for releasing software under completely
proprietary licenses. Good intentions don't make a restriction more free.
Nor do bad intentions make a restriction non-free.
What makes a restriction non-free is that it
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:56:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are non-malicious reasons for releasing software under completely
proprietary licenses. Good intentions don't make a restriction more free.
Nor do bad intentions make a
Raul Miller writes:
On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are non-malicious reasons for releasing software under completely
proprietary licenses. Good intentions don't make a restriction more free.
Nor do bad intentions make a restriction non-free.
What makes a
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:29:27PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
What makes a restriction non-free is that it prevents some free
use of the software.
There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
of some software to identify themselves would
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 11:50:54PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Steve On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote:
Steve If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed
*before*
Steve declaring the license non-free.
Steve
Steve No, I must not do any such thing. And
That is not totally correct. First, choice of venue clauses are, as a
rule, totally legal.
In all countries? Do you have any reference for that?
Second, the judgement won't be directly
enforceable in other countries, but in non-controversial cases (by
controversial, I'm thinking Yahoo!
Non-warranty clauses also override legal mechanisms to favor the
copyright holder. So what? They don't impede the use you can make of
the software. But they are uncomfortable, because should damage arise
following use of the software, the user won't be indemnified. In these
cases, non-warranty
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 12:04:07PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive
olive That is not totally correct. First, choice of venue clauses are, as a
olive rule, totally legal.
olive
olive In all countries? Do you have any reference for that?
I am certainly not going to state that it is true in all
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 12:12:55PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive Non-warranty clause are illegal in Europe. However the warranty applies
olive only in the case of commercial transaction. I am not sure you can claim
olive any warranty for a software that you have downloaded at no cost; wether
olive
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:18:55AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
To be more specific, we generally consider choice-of-venue non-free when
it
applies to suits brought by the copyright holder (/licensor) against other
people.
It's free when it only applies to suits brought by other
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote:
If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed *before*
declaring the license non-free. As long as the DFSG is not changed the
license remains DFSG-free. A lot of people in this list, declare free or
non-free software
Yorick Cool wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 12:12:55PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive Non-warranty clause are illegal in Europe. However the warranty applies
olive only in the case of commercial transaction. I am not sure you can claim
olive any warranty for a software that you have downloaded at no
Hi Yorick!
You wrote:
quote
1. Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free
in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. *We
promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
according to these
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:09:42PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive Yorick Cool wrote:
olive Er, no. There is an automatic warranty in sales, but you can
contractually
olive dismiss it. And licensing software is not selling it. I do concede
olive that that to which you refer is a common (but erreoneous)
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:23:53AM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
Well I obviously agree. My point was that the proposed interpretation
was drifting so far from the DFSG that it wasn't arguable that it
wasn't an addition and not a mere interpretation.
A license that says to modify this software,
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote:
If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed *before*
declaring the license non-free.
No, I must not do any such thing. And who are you to tell me I must?
I mean you have to; being not a
Yorick Cool writes:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:21:10AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Glenn There are laws in place for determining the *appropriate* venue. If
Glenn California really is the appropriate venue for the suit, as determined
Glenn by the law, then that's fine. If the appropriate
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 08:26:52AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael Yorick Cool writes:
Michael
Michael On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:21:10AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Michael Glenn There are laws in place for determining the *appropriate*
venue. If
Michael Glenn California really is the
Yorick Cool writes:
You have very well elaborated on FOO, it is good example. That means
that if a US licensor established in New York licenses software to
me without specifying anything as to venue, then I shall potentially
be attracted to New York in case of litigation. How is that
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
And licensing software is not selling it.
Yorick, Yorick. The courts disagree.
Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between Adobe
and any third-party such that a breach of the license constitutes
copyright
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Beware, what you are citing is an opinion, and not the actual legal
framework.
Yorick, Yorick. I suggest you go talk to Hoeren on software
licensing in Europe.
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
The Prof.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:07:02AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael Yorick Cool writes:
Michael
Michael You have very well elaborated on FOO, it is good example. That means
Michael that if a US licensor established in New York licenses software to
Michael me without specifying anything as
On 1/26/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit?
I've heard mention of the concept.
Have you heard of 425.16?
(It's visible at http://www.casp.net/cal425.html)
Ok, I'm assuming that free software is in the public interest, but I
don't
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:07:02AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
[... blame geography ...]
For the record: I agree with Yorick regarding venue. Poole is dead
wrong as usual.
regards,
alexander.
On 26 Jan 2006 11:07:02 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yorick Cool writes:
And for others it might change the rules in a non-costly way or not at
all.
Thus it is a form of discrimination. It imposes costs (conditional,
but still costs) on some people that it does not impose
On 1/26/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not at all convinced. First, I wonder if this choice of venue is
legal.
I think the question is not whether it's legal, but whether it's
relevant.
In some cases it is (for example, if someone takes action against
Adobe based on that license), in
On 1/26/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
And licensing software is not selling it.
Yorick, Yorick. The courts disagree.
And then quotes as proof a huge chunk of
Yorick Cool writes:
If the default rules of law force you to accept a lawsuit brought upon
you in New York, then a license with no choice of venue clause very
much does force you to go to NY if you don't want to.
It should be quite plain that the license has nothing to do with that
Just to stress...
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
And licensing software is not selling it.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:45:33PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael Yorick Cool writes:
Michael
Michael If the default rules of law force you to accept a lawsuit brought
upon
Michael you in New York, then a license with no choice of venue clause very
Michael much does force you to go to NY
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:45:33PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael Thus it is a form of discrimination. It imposes costs
(conditional,
Michael but still costs) on some people that it does not impose on
Michael others.
As does every single license on earth, because you could be
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:47:37PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael If the laws governing default fora are flawed, please fix
those laws.
Very well. I am now off to fix the laws of every country in the
world. I will tell legislators that it is because any other conduct
might mean that a few
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:31:25PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
It should be obvious that the silence of a licence is an implicit
acceptance of the legal effects of laws it could have rejected. Since
it could have changed those effects, by not speaking, the licence is
taking a positive stance.
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:47:37PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael If the laws governing default fora are flawed, please fix
those laws.
Very well. I am now off to fix the laws of every country in the
world.
Take me, take me with you, oh
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:18:55 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of
Santa Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:34:13AM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
Glenn Michael I do not miss that point at all; I think that the default
rules of law
Glenn Michael are preferable to the imposition of a forum selected by the
Glenn Michael licensor.
Glenn
Glenn And why is that, if the
On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Agreeing to the condition--[whatever]--is a condition to receive
the license to the software.
Well, the GPLv3, for example, elaborates on GPLv2 section 5 (go read
its first statement) and says that You are not required to accept
this
You may not modify the Documentation.
Means the docs are non-free.
6. GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION. This Agreement is governed by the statutes
and laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflicts of law
principles thereof. If any part of this Agreement is found void and
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:30:32 +0100 Achim Bohnet wrote:
You may not modify the Documentation.
As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, Documentation is non-free:
it actually fails DFSG#3.
[...]
6. GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION.
[...]
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal contributors (including me...).
On 1/26/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:30:32 +0100 Achim Bohnet wrote:
You may not modify the Documentation.
As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, Documentation is non-free:
it actually fails DFSG#3.
[...]
6. GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION.
Raul Miller writes:
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal
On 25 Jan 2006 20:48:29 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
If Adobe is going to take legal action against someone else,
they'll have to deal with the jurisdiction(s) where this someone
else has a presence.
Why do you say that?
You pretty much answered your
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:42:22AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 1/26/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
live far away from Santa Clara County, California, USA and thus fail
DFSG#5. Those people can be forced
Raul Miller writes:
On 25 Jan 2006 20:48:29 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
If Adobe is going to take legal action against someone else,
they'll have to deal with the jurisdiction(s) where this someone
else has a presence.
Why do you say that?
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal contributors (including me...).
In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
live far away from Santa Clara County, California, USA and thus fail
DFSG#5. Those people can be forced to travel
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 09:23:03AM +0400, olive wrote:
In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
live far away from Santa Clara County, California, USA and thus fail
DFSG#5. Those people can be forced to travel around the planet in order
to defend themselves in a
If it's not legal, or not enforcable, that doesn't make it any less non-
Free. If it's really known to be unenforcable, then the copyright
holder should be willing to remove it from the license, and prevent the
confusion (and misleading claims).
The other argument is that even without this
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal contributors (including
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:08:34AM +0400, olive wrote:
If it's not legal, or not enforcable, that doesn't make it any less non-
Free. If it's really known to be unenforcable, then the copyright
holder should be willing to remove it from the license, and prevent the
confusion (and misleading
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:18:55AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
To be more specific, we generally consider choice-of-venue non-free when it
applies to suits brought by the copyright holder (/licensor) against other
people.
It's free when it only applies to suits brought by other people
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 07:32:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is considered
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 09:23:03AM +0400, olive wrote:
olive
olive This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
olive debian-legal contributors (including me...).
olive
olive In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
olive live far away from Santa Clara
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 07:32:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote:
If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed *before*
declaring the license non-free.
No, I must not do any such thing. And who are you to tell me I must?
As long as the DFSG is not changed the license remains
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:21:10AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Glenn There are laws in place for determining the *appropriate* venue. If
Glenn California really is the appropriate venue for the suit, as determined
Glenn by the law, then that's fine. If the appropriate venue is Massachusetts,
97 matches
Mail list logo
