On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: > > > > > These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license > > > > > can be "free" with a venue choice that you do not consider "sane"), so > > > > > I must have misunderstood one of them. Could you elaborate, please? > > > > > If we replace "sane" with "enforcable" (which is what I think the OP was > > > > getting at) then they are in fact compatible. A license does not become > > > > non-free if it contains unenforcable components, unless it contains a > > > > component > > > > that specifies that any unenforcable clause voids the whole license. > > > > But choice-of-venue clauses, at least in contracts, *are* enforceable in > > > some significant jurisdictions -- like the one which hosts > > > ftp-master.debian.org. > > > > So their freeness is still an issue. > > > I get the feeling that it is not the freeness of them which is an issue, > > they > > don't really make the software more or less free after all, since they enter > > in account only if the licence is broken > > No, they enter into consideration *whenever the copyright holder decides > to sue you*. There have even been cases of one-time Linux kernel > contributors flipping out and suing members of the community -- filing > suit, of course, in their own home jurisdiction, where it's cheap for > them to flood the courts with SLAPP filings. Do we really think it's a > good idea to approve of giving copyright holders extra leverage for such > lawsuits in their license, and just hope that none of these copyrights > ever wind up in the hands of a hostile entity?
Sure, but this has not to do if the software is free or not. But other considerations which have nothing to do with freedom or not. > > , and we don't really can consider freeness definitions based on more > > or less broken local juridictions. > > In the past, when we have discussed broken jurisdictions, it has been in > the context of licenses which don't go far enough to spell out freedoms > that are taken for granted. When we talk about choice of venue clauses, > however, this is a clause which has been actively included in the > license and which is (IMHO) non-free in intent. I don't think we should > accept such licenses as free just because they don't *succeed* in being > non-free in all jurisdictions. I agree that we should not accept such licence, but not because they are not free :) And BTW, i am getting over-flamed on the opensolaris lists because of that, by single individuals even, so we will see. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
