On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:15:57PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:58:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Regardless of whether choice of venue is a "fee", the only people I've > > > seen who appear to believe that choice of venue is free are you, Lex > > > Spoon and Sven Luther. > > > So, there is : 4 against 15, or rhougly 21 % of people who think that choice > > of venue could be a "fee". IS 80% enough to get consensus ? > > For the sake of my own understanding of people's opinions, was there a fourth?
Sorry, now, the line break made me read Lex and Spoon as two separate people, which is obviously not the case, sorry LEx. > > Also, i belive of some you listed, some consider choice of venue non-free, > > but > > don't consider it as a fee, if i remember well. > > That's what I meant in my first paragraph--I'm among them. Exactly. > > Well, i think if the question would be if the choice of venue consitutes a > > fee, and thus violate DFSG 1, or is not a fee and thus either needs a new > > DFSG > > entry, or violate DFSG 5 by discriminating against licence violators far > > away > > from the chosen venue, then you would have a much less consensual situation > > still. > > > > BTW, mt upstream is ready to drop choice of venue from the QPLish licence, > > so > > i won't argue here, but i still believe that one has to be hallucinating to > > consider choice of venue a fee. The DFSG 5 problem i may admit, but choice > > of > > venue as fee, not. > > My opinion is that choice of venue is a restriction, and that "fees" are just > one example of restrictions which "may not restrict" in DFSG#1 disallows. DFSG #1 says : "may not restrict any party from selling or giving away". I really don't understand how this can be covered by a choice of venue clause, since there is no restriction whatsoever involved, apart that you may be in trouble once you willingly violate the licence. I don't really buy the tentacle of evil argument, and feel that focalizing on potentially evil upstreams is a disservice and an insult to every reasonable-minded upstream. > Another restriction I believe would be in this class is "you may only > distribute this program on Thursday". (I agree that calling either of these > a fee is a stretch.) Absolutely not the same thing, since what you describe is indeed a restriction, since it limits effectively what you can do with the software. But the choice of venue is only a potential disagrement for those being sued, even in the case it gets supported in court, and furthermore doesn't pose any restriction on sales or gifting the software in question. Now, if you want to discuss DFSG #5, sure, but since the case of ocaml is solved, i don't really have an interest all that much in it. And BTW, upstream modified that clause, not because they are a tentacle of evil, but because they "localized" the original QPL who had a choice of venue of Oslo or something such. Friendly, Sven Luther > > -- > Glenn Maynard > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
