On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:24:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > SENDMAIL OPEN SOURCE LICENSE > > > Use, modification and redistribution (including distribution of any > > modified or derived work) of the Software in source and binary forms is > > permitted only if each of the following conditions are met: > > I don't think debian-legal is aware of any jurisdiction wherein a > copyright holder can legally restrict *use* of copies of his work, > when the copies themselves have been legally made and distributed.
Technically, I think the US is such a jurisdiction, under some of the more obscure clauses of the DMCA. But that stuff isn't licensable and so isn't relevant. > > This license is governed by California law and both of us > > agree that for any dispute arising out of or relating to this Software, > > that jurisdiction and venue is proper in San Francisco or Alameda > > counties. > > That is a stinker, I think. It appears to mean that if I use sendmail, > and the upstream authors for some reason think that I'm violating > their terms, I am required to go to San Francisco to protest my > innocense. This is a non-free condition, I think. Yeah, keyword is "venue", these are no good; it's an choice between a flight at your expense or be tried in absentia (I don't think extradition applies to copyright cases, although I can imagine the US trying to pull it off). > It would be OK for the Sendmail people to say "if the user wants to > sue *us*, he must do it in SF" I'm not really sure about that one. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
