On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:23:42 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote: [...] > 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.
You are right, DFSG#1 is more suitable than DFSG#5 to conclude that
choice-of-venue is non-free.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpq0jLgwTlmO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
