On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:33:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Sven Luther writes: > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:04:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors > >> > based on > >> > the licence ? > >> > >> I am not sure what in the license would give rise to a cause for > >> action against the authors: it grants others more rights than they > >> normally have, although some are conditional on certain performance by > >> the licensee. The authors make no warranty or promise in the license. > > > > See my other response about this. Still what would give the upstream author > > cause to sue an honest user in the first place ? Your argument cuts both > > way. > > The example in your other response would not arise under breach of the > license, since the license is from upstream to the modifier. The > lawsuit against upstream would be simple copyright infringement. The > license would provide an affirmative defense against that claim if the > QPL'ed version of the code included the changes. > > I made no argument to cut both ways; I just answered part of your > question as to what would happen if someone wanted to sue the upstream > authors based on the license. > > You are the one who wants to expose arbitrary Debian users to lawsuits > in a particular place. I just want to preserve the rights they > already have.
Ok. > >> Regardless, the normal rules for venue would apply: among other rules > >> for venue, a plaintiff could only file suit in a court with personal > >> jurisdiction over the defendant(s). Assuming that the Ocaml authors > >> live and work exclusively near Versailles, it would be the court > >> there. Just like SCO cannot sue me in Utah, SCO would have to do > >> business here in Virginia for me to sue them here. > > > > Ok, but this is US law, isn't it ? > > I *hope* that most courts have similar rules on jurisdiction. If you I would not bet on that. > live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in > Nice for doing X? I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question at hand here. > >> The freeness issue comes down to this: Courts normally give the > >> benefit of venue to the defendant. Why should a free software license > >> change that? > > > > I will ask the upstream author this, and see what they have to say about > > this. > > But still, there is nothing in the DFSG which explicitly forbids it, so if > > you > > want to declare the QPL non-free based on this, we would need an DFSG > > change. > > Choice of venue clauses take away a right normally accorded to people > outside that venue. Would you explain why that is not discrimination > against those people under DFSG#5? Because the people concerned are still free to use the software under rights given by the licence. The suing stuff is a pathological case, which doesn't come into account for speaking about the DFSG #5, at least that is my interpretation. > Since the introduction to the QPL says it covers "use of third-party > application programs based on the Software, and development of free > software which uses the Software," Debian would be obliged to inform > users (not just those who modify or distribute the code) that they > could be sued in France. And ? > > BTW, i wonder if it would make sense to contact trolltech's juridical > > department or whatever over these issues ? After all they did the legal work > > of it, and if we are able to get them to do a clarified QPL 1.1 or > > something, > > then it would be rather easy to get all those QPL software out there to > > migrate to it. > > That would make sense, as long as we (debian-legal) can agree on what > is problematic, and hopefully offer specific suggestions on what would > make the license (clearly) DFSG-free. Well, what about asking them directly about our troubles right now and hearing what they have to answer about them ? Did anyone here already try that ? Friendly, Sven Luther
