Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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,
There's your mistake. A choice-of-venue clause becomes relevant as soon as one party decides to sue the other. He can do that without the license actually having been broken. If the other party cannot appear at the court being stipulated, the plaintiff will _automatically_ win in many jurisdictions; and then it will never be relevant whether the license was _actually_ broken. > and we don't really can consider freeness definitions based on more > or less broken local juridictions. You may consider most jurisdictions in the world broken and prefer to decide freedom as it would apply in a hypothetical "ideal" jurisdiction, according to some definition of "ideal". I don't. Debian has to function in the real world. > Now, that doesn't mean we have to accept them, but we would reject them not > based on the DFSG, but based on the risk they bring to our infrastructure and > mirror network and ... We must reject them because such licenses only gives the *user* the freedoms we promise him that he will have if the *user* agrees to submit himself to a completely unlimited risk of having to travel to the end of the world to defend himself from bogus lawsuits from the software author. -- Henning Makholm "Jeg kunne ikke undgå at bemærke at han gik på hænder."
