Please do not cc me. I am subscribed. I have tried to respect your
requests in the past.
On 2004-07-23 16:00:10 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[...], the need to hire a lawyer local to Versailles is a
significant
additional expense an abusive licensor can make the defendant pay,
apparently on a whim.
Well, some could argue that you could directly write to the judge
then, and
explain why the claim of the upstream author should not apply, and
maybe make
mention of the harrasment you are suffering from his part.
Do French courts not require a defendant to be physically represented
at the court?
I am not familiar with this kind of stuff, so if you have hard
evidence that
this would not be possible, please tell me about this.
Likewise, especially given that French courts are foreign to me. Hell,
I don't even know whether French courts will apply a licence written
in English without both sides consenting.
[...] all this still doesn't make it non-free accordying to the DFSG.
A licensor-determined requirement to pay for representation in a
far-away court (extra to any cost of attending the local normal
court), does seem a fairly clear fee that we have to be prepared to
pay for distributing a QPL'd work, rather than QPL granting free
redistribution. I think I am referring to DFSG 1, even if we can't
agree whether it covers termination clauses.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
