<posted & mailed> Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:15:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: >> As for 6c, I am convinced by the arguments in >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html >> >> which render its problems moot. As long as the original author >> agrees with that interpretation, the only problem left is the choice >> of venue. > > Assuming the second link was ment to be > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00519.html > > then yes, I think that is the correct interpretation. OK. Since you confirm that interpretation, then that clause is fine. :-) Hooray! Perhaps a link to that specification of the interpretation and your confirmation of it should be put somewhere. (In the package copyright file? On the debian-legal page?) <snip> > If this is agreed upon by everyone - then it makes sense to talk > about the choice of venue versus choise of law thing. > Provided that libcwd WILL be included in Debian, I am willing to > change the wording of the last sentence into one that only states > a choice of law, not venue. But then it must be very clear that > that is enough for making the license pass DFSG as such a change > would be irrevocable. Well, we went over it very carefully, and those two were the only problem issues we saw. I would be willing to say that that was enough, though I obviously can't speak for everyone, let alone future generations of debian-legal. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
