[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in
licenses, however.
Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
plenty of bad licenses which are free.
Only for a strange definition of free (such that some might
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you distinguish a requirement that the user abide by some
remote court's process from a requirement that the user pet a cat,
volunteer for some personally distasteful organization, etc? Are
those DFSG-free requirements?
At least, these are obvious limitation on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in
licenses, however.
Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
plenty of bad licenses which are free.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in
licenses, however.
Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
plenty of bad licenses which are free.
Only for a strange definition of free
Scripsit Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marco d'Itri writes:
Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
plenty of bad licenses which are free.
Only for a strange definition of free (such that some might accuse
you of wanting to put non-free things into main).
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marco d'Itri writes:
Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
plenty of bad licenses which are free.
Only for a strange definition of free (such that some might accuse
you of wanting to put
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:34:25 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Jennifer Brown wrote:
[...]
Also please forgive my ignorance but can someone give me a primer on
the term free as it relates to this discussion. Someone once told
me that free does not
--- On Mon 09/19, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jenifer, please also consider reading http://www.debian.org/intro/free to
have a more general introduction to the topic...
PERFECT!
Thanks
Jenn
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
I think your points make a lot of sense, but you've made them citing
case law valid in a few specific jurisdictions.
A significant element of the concern that's been expressed has had to
do with international law.
In other words, while your points can diffuse some of the fear about
this issue,
Scripsit Jennifer Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In conclusion it seems that just because a venue/forum selection
clause exists does not in-and-of-itself mean that it will hold up in
court. Because there are many other factors (like minimum contacts,
Long-Arm Statutes, foreseeability, superseding
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 10:28:23PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I fully understand that _may_ and _shall_ are different terms however,
and I will check on this, but I am pretty sure _may_ in this instance
is indicating _required._ Again I need to confer with someone to see
if licensing
From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in
their licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage.
As I understand it choice of venue clauses are standard boiler plate language
in agreements regardless of
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Jennifer Brown wrote:
From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in
their licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage.
As I understand it choice of venue clauses
From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have
in licenses, however.
I suppose a lawyer would argue what is irrelevant at the moment may be very
relevant at a later time...good or ill it is safer to hedge than not,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent?
Because it's not obviously a cost.
I have already
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue.
This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue.
This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions.
Why would it
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent?
Because it's not obviously a cost.
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What
is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection
he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of the
copyright holder to sue users. The cost is
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What
is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection
he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of the
copyright holder to
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
We've seen frivolous suits against software alleging patent
infringement. Since the only way we can protect our users from these is
to stop distributing software, should we do so?
I do not propose we do anything to stop
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
We've seen frivolous suits against software alleging patent
infringement. Since the only way we can protect our users from these is
to stop distributing software, should we do so?
I do not propose we do
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
But downloading a piece of software from Debian opens me up to the
possibility of frivolous lawsuits from the copyright holder, something
that did not occur before. How is that not a cost?
Why did it not exist before? Your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue.
This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions.
Why would it not be enforceable? In
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you distinguish a requirement that the user abide by some
remote court's process from a requirement that the user pet a cat,
volunteer for some personally distasteful organization, etc? Are
those DFSG-free requirements?
At least, these are obvious limitation on
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exactly. It's not a cost because exactly the same thing could happen
anyway. The same is true of choice of venue clauses - the bringer of the
suit could claim that their local venue had jurisdiction over me, even
if this isn't actually the case.
The
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:31:39PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exactly. It's not a cost because exactly the same thing could happen
anyway. The same is true of choice of venue clauses - the bringer of the
suit could claim that their local venue
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:31:39PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The difference is that if you have accepted a choice-of-venue license,
the sociopath can present his local venue with proof that it has
jurisdisction. That makes a difference, however
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue.
This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions.
Why would it
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you distinguish a requirement that the user abide by some
remote court's process from a requirement that the user pet a cat,
volunteer for some personally distasteful organization, etc? Are
those DFSG-free requirements?
At least, these are
I am new to this list, I arrived here by being interested in the Debian Women
Project, so please forgive me if I am jumping in where my opinion is not wanted
and if I am too long winded. I have been trying to follow the recent
conversation regarding choice of venue (aka forum selection
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:05:32PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:44:05AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do any of these choice of venue clauses impinge on simple redistribution?
If so, I'd *definitely* be against those specific ones.
Yes. The only thing that allows simple redistribution is the license,
and you don't get the license without accepting the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent?
Because it's not obviously a cost.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent?
Because it's not obviously a cost.
On Friday 16 September 2005 14:26, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution
rights free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk
imposed by the license more free than one measured in hundredths of a
Michael Poole wrote:
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent?
Because
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:08:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:05:32PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Do any of these choice of venue clauses impinge on simple redistribution?
If so, I'd *definitely* be against those specific ones. If they don't
relate to the simple
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:05:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
license more free than one
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:05:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution
rights
free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As others have said before, this mostly boils down to a convenience factor.
This clause makes the venue convenient for the copyright holder in matters
of enforcement, as opposed to making it convenient for the (suspected)
copyright violator. That's ok
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:36:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What
is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection
he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of the
copyright holder to sue
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:27:35PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It makes it inconvenient for users and debian-legal, needing to
know local absurdities of Seaforth or whereever's court procedures.
By this reasoning, we should reject every package for which someone holds
copyright, because it is
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:36:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What
is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection
he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of the
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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
The copyright holder can sue users (or even random people off the street,
for
that matter) whether he put a choice of venue clause in his license or not.
Please go back and read the rest of this thread,
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:03:05PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
You really need to justify it based on the basic freedoms that the DFSG is
meant to guarantee. Note that not costing money isn't one of those
freedoms. Nor is preventing travel or a prolonged stay. Justifying
non-freeness in terms
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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:10:32PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:03:05PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
You really need to justify it based on the basic freedoms that the DFSG is
meant to guarantee. Note that not costing money isn't one of those
freedoms. Nor is
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:18:00PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
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?
Its effect is a slightly higher risk than a license which
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:22:21PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue.
What if the People's Republic of Kraplakistan made a law that all of
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:30:47PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:22:21PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue.
David Nusinow writes:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
The copyright holder can sue users (or even random people off the street,
for
that matter) whether he put a choice of venue clause in his license or not.
Please go back and read
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:56:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
From my own experience, I cannot agree with those who think
the marginal cost is a negligible one.
It's not negligible. Just not significant to the point where it increases
the risk to an unacceptable level IMO.
--Adam
--
To
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:51:31PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
I'd simply advocate that we stop distributing material copyrighted by
citizens of Kraplakistan[1]. I don't think we should use the DFSG to try
and change legal systems. As many others on this list have said in the past
as well, we
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 05:12:39PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I believe negligible includes your viewpoint.
I'm not interested in arguing semantics; I believe I made my viewpoint quite
clear.
My own question, when presented with any such cost, is on what basis
it *is* free, since the DFSG
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 05:12:39PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
My own question, when presented with any such cost, is on what basis
it *is* free, since the DFSG tend to not allow a copyright owner to
impose costs on users.
By that reasoning nothing is DFSG free, since
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:59:25PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:33:23PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:27:35PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It makes it inconvenient for users and debian-legal, needing to
know local absurdities of Seaforth or whereever's court procedures.
By this reasoning, we should reject every
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:58:37 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:53:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are
free to not install such software if they
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:00:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:59:25PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:16:40PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:13:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, actually, my country's government doesn't give a flying fruit basket
what *another* country says copyright protections should be; if the work is
being
On Thursday 15 September 2005 01:38, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are real-world examples that choice-of-venue clauses could be more
dangerous than without them. I'm not sure is DFSG can catch these
challenges, but it certainly should not be read as
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just to emphasise this point - *we can't even protect them from being
sued in an arbitrary country*.
It is not a matter of protecting users. It is a matter of not
requiring users to actively drop whichever protection they *already* have.
--
Henning
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes they do. You have to suffer the choice-of-venue clause in order to
get the freedoms we expect from software. That is a cost. It is a cost
I do not want to pay just to get some
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't like the idea of choice of venue clauses either, but I'm more
uncomfortable with extending the DFSG to deal with things outside the realm
of the basic freedoms we associate with software.
There is no extensions going on. It has ALWAYS been the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Copyright licences also shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the
legal system.
Why not?
That has led to things such as any-patent-death clauses
and supertrademarks.
You say this as if it were a bad thing.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely
protect people from being sued to begin with.
C'mon David! :-(
We are not imposing anything on our
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:02:54 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just to emphasise this point - *we can't even protect them from
being sued in an arbitrary country*.
It is not a matter of protecting users. It is a matter of not
requiring users to
On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely
protect people from being sued to begin
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Copyright licences also shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the
legal system.
Why not?
Do yourself a favour and learn how statutes and agreements differ.
That has led to things such as any-patent-death clauses
and
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:53:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely
protect people from being sued to
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:44:05AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
to not install such software if they
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:56:34AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
** David Nusinow ::
If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it.
If the two sides live in different places, one of them has to
travel no matter what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 17:22, David Nusinow wrote:
--cut--
Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on
the freedoms we expect from software. They do impose a potential cost on
litigation related to that software,
Please describe what do you think the
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] They do impose a potential cost on
litigation related to that software, but the DFSG shouldn't be used as a
weapon to change the legal system. [...]
Copyright licences also shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the
legal system. That has led to
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are real-world examples that choice-of-venue clauses could be more
dangerous than without them. I'm not sure is DFSG can catch these challenges,
but it certainly should not be read as glossary or as a bullet list with do's
and dont's.
The DFSG
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:46:49PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:17:06 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
I think we need to consider the point
that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause
may be important for a program author to successfully defend
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on
the freedoms we expect from software.
Yes they do. You have to suffer the choice-of-venue clause in order to
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free to
not install such software if they choose. We can't completely protect
people from being sued to begin with.
Just to emphasise this point - *we can't even protect them from being
David Nusinow writes:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on
the freedoms we expect from software.
Yes they do. You have to suffer the
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Saying that choice of venue is free seems no different than saying
You agree to not use this software in connection with the production
of nuclear energy or You agree to not use this software for any
military purpose is free -- all are waivers of a
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Saying that choice of venue is free seems no different than saying
You agree to not use this software in connection with the production
of nuclear energy or You agree to not use this software for any
military purpose is free --
** David Nusinow ::
If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it.
If the two sides live in different places, one of them has to
travel no matter what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say
that choice of venue clauses aren't Free, then the person bringing
the suit will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is, in my opinion, the natural and direct extension of the
explicit language that a license cannot require royalties or other
fees to be paid in exchange for the rights described in the
In my opinion, this is not natural nor direct.
Looks like we are down to opinions
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:25:38 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, AFAICT.
The DFSG are guidelines to determine whether a *right-holder* gives
enough permissions to *licensees*, not whether *Debian* gives enough
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 05:54:34PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want
(unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to
enter the scene... all
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
So finally we are up to the good old every restriction is a
discrimination argument. Even if in the last two years it has become
popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the
project was not looking, I believe that it is based on
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:23:42PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
So finally we are up to the good old every restriction is a
discrimination argument. Even if in the last two years it has become
popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:23:42 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote:
[...]
For what it's worth, I do not believe that DFSG #5 is a sensible
reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free. The sensible
reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free is the following
general principle:
A
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, AFAICT.
The DFSG are guidelines to determine whether a *right-holder* gives
enough permissions to *licensees*, not whether *Debian* gives enough
permissions to *right-holders*.
That doesn't appear to be part of the
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:52:07PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005, John Hasler wrote:
Gunnar Wolf writes:
...Or get him extradited somehow.
Extradition has nothing to do with civil lawsuits.
Hey, copyright infringement is a crime these days...
And the US has
On Saturday 10 September 2005 02:48, David Nusinow wrote:
--cut--
If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it. If the
two sides live in different places, one of them has to travel no matter
what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say that choice of venue clauses
aren't
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:48:12PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
If the justification for this is to be grounded in the discrimination
clause of the DFSG, we can't choose to discriminate against the
program's authors.
Even if we accept this argument, how is putting the authors on equal
On 9/9/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Part of the issue with the existing framework of personal jurisdiction is
that we don't seem to have a clear idea what it actually is. I haven't seen
any links to documents explaining how jurisdiction is actually determined
in real life cases.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:17:06PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:55:24PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Not really interested in the case where you actually did infringe on
the license. I don't think it's worthwhile to worry about whether we
discriminate against such
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:48:12PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Sorry, this sentence registers as complete nonsense to me. If you're
going to claim that requiring certain things of *authors* before their
code can be included in Debian is a fee, how is this particular fee
different from the
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:27:08AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
And remember that in many jurisdictions, it's also possible to sue for
legal expenses under various circumstances. That means that the net
(monetary) cost to a copyright holder for defending his copyright is
potentially zero.
Choice of venue is a practical problem because it limits
the number of people who can understand the full meaning of
a licence, including the local wrinkles of its venue. I say
there's potential for an effective fee in some cases, but I
don't know the courts of (say) Santa Clara well enough to
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I
think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't
enforce?
A licence can communicate your wishes to others clearly and
it's a sort of promise to your
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
