Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on
> the freedoms we expect from software.
Yes they do. You have to suffer the choice-of-venue clause in order to
get the freedoms we expect from software. That is a cost. It is a cost
I do not want to pay just to get some software on my computer, and it
is a cost that I cannot in good conscience advocate that Debian users
should have to pay in order to get the freedoms of software that we
promise comes with freedoms.
> They do impose a potential cost on litigation related to that
> software,
No, you are completely mistaken. The risk associated with accepting a
choice-of-venue clause hits *especially* users who have no plans to
litigate over the license.
> but the DFSG shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the
> legal system.
It is not being used as a weapon to change the legal system. The legal
system is fine as it is. We're merely protecting users from having a
weapon trained on them that the legal system does not ordinarily
provide.
> It should be used to protect and guarantee that we have certain
> freedoms in relation to using, modifying, and distributing
> software. Choice of venue clauses don't change these freedoms.
Choice of venue means that one has to accept to lose a pre-existing
protection before one gets the freedom to use, modify and distribute
the software. We do not want to impose on our users that they have to
lose that protection just because they depend on Debian.
--
Henning Makholm "There is a danger that curious users may
occasionally unplug their fiber connector and look
directly into it to watch the bits go by at 100 Mbps."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
