Sean Kellogg writes: > On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote: >> In contrast to choice of law, choice of venue requires users who are >> not normally subject to that court's personal jurisdiction to give up >> a right they normally have to use the software. Take your pick >> whether that is discrimination or a fee or something else, but waiver >> of pre-existing rights is a clear violation of the spirit of the DFSG. > > How is that descrimination or a fee? Someone earlier mentioned that right to > a jury trial is protected by the DFSG?! Seriously people, we are talking > about software here. I personally subscribe to the four freedoms staked out > by FSF. I understand that Debian has extended those freedoms in certain > areas with the DFSG, and in ways that I agree make sense, but reading in > rights to a jury trial or a right to have only personal jurisdiction within > the state/country of residence is just not one of them.
Waiving normal personal jurisdiction is a lot more costly than the proverbial (and still forbidden) "pet a cat/dog" license -- yet there is nothing in the DFSG that directly addresses petting an animal. > But, if I grant your point, and accept that the DFSG protects my right to all > those things, why doesn't it invalidate licenses that waive liability to the > distributor? Isn't that my inaliable right... a fee I must pay in order to > use the software... aren't I being descriminated against to the benefit of > the developer and distributor. Its an outrage, its unexusable... but it is > the way it is, and I fail to see a distinction between libability waivers, > venue clauses, or rights to jury trials. It is not discrimination: every user is treated identically. It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
