Sven Luther writes: >> The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside > > Well, any licence allowing the user to be sued discriminate against people not > having the time or money to play legal games.
That is why most licenses don't bother to mention lawsuits at all: they are an implicit consequence of violating the license. Likewise, Debian considers licenses non-free if they say "You may only use this software in legal ways" because that discriminates against dissidents where there are repressive laws. >> the chosen venue. Your response in the past was that the DFSG should >> not protect copyright infringement, and it should not. The legal > > Yes. > >> fact, though, is that until a court rules on the matter, claims of >> copyright infringement are just claims. Whether the copyright owner >> files suit out of malice or misunderstanding, an innocent defendant >> may still have to appear in some very inconvenient court that would >> not otherwise have jurisdiction. > > Ok, but i am not convinced by the DFSG #5 invocation here. After all the same > could happen for any wild accusation, even if there is no licence involved. I > could for example claim that you are using code copyrighted by me in your > proprietary software product, even though you never touched a code licenced by > me, or do like SCO and refute the legality of the GPL. Unless I live or do business where you or SCO are (or some court wants to look silly in front of the world) you and SCO would have to file suit where I am. You could not sue me in France, and SCO could not sue me in Utah. The license is non-free when it compels me to appear before a court that would not otherwise have jurisdiction over me. Michael Poole
