On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:01:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create > > derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the > > DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted > > in doing things like porting software, fixing bugs, and so forth. The > > SC and DFSG make no mention of those tasks, either.
> I think that "people who use the software" constitutes a relevant group > of people for "The license must not discriminate against any person or > group of persons." > I think "people who don't use the software" and "people who violate > the license terms" do not constitute relevant groups of people. > Furthermore, I don't think the problem with this license is a problem > with the license at all. It's that some people have a problem with > the licensor. No. Read the list archives. Those of us who argue against choice-of-venue have been doing so for months, on licenses from a wide range of licensors. It just happens that the argument against choice-of-venue is predicated on the possibility of a hostile licensor going sue-happy and using this license clause to get away with harrassment suits *that they otherwise could not afford to carry out separately and would not withstand the barest scrutiny if brought against everyone in their home court as a single suit*. License freeness certainly should be analyzed without regard for the identity of the copyright holder[1]; it should be *assumed* that the copyright holder is hostile, because *copyrights can be transferred*. And here we have the most perfect example imaginable of a license being offered by a copyright holder with a known and public history of hostility towards information freedom, and people still don't acknowledge that there's a risk here. It's flabbergasting! > Since the GPL could just as easily be abused for harassment purposes > (requiring proof of compliance for every copy delivered, or some nonsense > like that), No, what you describe would be a bug in the legal system, not a bug in the license. That's a crucial difference. There is nothing *in the GPL* that gives the copyright holder unfair leverage to sue a bunch of people at low per-unit cost to them. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ [1] as distinct from clarifying statements the copyright holder has *made* about their intent
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
