On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:23:42PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) > > > So finally we are up to the good old "every restriction is a > > discrimination" argument. Even if in the last two years it has become > > popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the > > project was not looking, I believe that it is based on a > > misunderstanding of the meaning of DFSG #5. > > For what it's worth, I do not believe that DFSG #5 is a sensible > reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free. The sensible > reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free is the following > general principle: > > A license can only be free if one can always "accept" the license > without losing any right that one had before one received the > license. > > (Those who think that licenses are not contracts and do not need to be > accepted, feel free to substitue "use the rights granted" instead of > "accept"). > > This is, in my opinion, the natural and direct extension of the > explicit language that a license cannot require "royalties or other > fees" to be paid in exchange for the rights described in the > DFSG. Plain and simple, if it requires that you give up *anything* > that you already had before, then it's not free. > > A choice-of-venue clause is a demand that I give up my right to have > the specified foreign court automatically throw out a nuisance suit > citing lack on the grounds of personal jurisidiction. Without the > license I have this right; with it I don't. > > To try to shoehorn such a fundamental principle into the much more > specific DSFG#5 just to please some literal-minded apologists who want > the DFSG to be an objective ruleset rather than a set of guidelines, > is just silly.
So, what do you propose a new DFSG rule addition for the above principle ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
