Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 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.
What's the precedent for that? (I know Debian objects to licences that enforce particular national laws on people who would not otherwise be restricted by those laws because they live and work in a different country, but that's more like discrimation against people where there are less repressive laws.) > And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors based on > the licence ? How would that work? How can you sue someone based on a unilateral permission that they gave you? I can't say I'm very happy with the choice-of-venue clause. What if I were to write in a licence that "disputes will be settled by my wife, whose decision is binding on all parties"?
