Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
MJ Ray wrote:
<snip>
> Unfortunately, FSF is mostly a black box to outsiders like me.
To almost everyone.
> I have
> asked them questions sometimes, but the answers so far have been slow,
> incomplete and/or cautious first-line responses, rather than involving
> any words from the decision-makers. This has been a problem I've had
> with FSF, Inc for a long time. We all know that they have good lawyers
> involved, but I can't figure out the reasoning myself and the people
> who have answered questions fully get offended that you even ask the
> question. The Europeans are more accessible, but seem not to want to
> duplicate the US FSF licensing team, so I don't have any official
> channel for questions there.
> Further, if FSF front-line volunteers connect a request with anything
> sent to this list, I get bloody suspicious questions back and I think
> it gets tagged as "low priority, answer before next ice age". Why
> can't you all get over stuff and take each case as it comes? Learn
> from it, but get over it. Gah!</rant>
Indeed.
<snip>
>> I suspect that one of the major objections to choice of venue clauses
>> (as opposed to choice of law clauses) is that they place more of a
>> burden on those being sued. [...]
>
> Is this hindering cost-free distribution by being able to demand
> payment to represent the licensee in that venue? Or do we regard this
> as discrimination by denying foreign defendants the right to be heard
> in a local court using their residency's law and language, as normally
> would happen?
Both?
<snip>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: