Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: Choice of venue argumentation.

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:36:57PM -0400, mdpoole@troilus.org wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:22:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Sven Luther writes:
> >> 
> >> >> live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
> >> >> Nice for doing X?
> >> >
> >> > I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question at
> >> > hand here.
> >> 
> >> Contract law can override that.  That does not mean we have to accept
> >> that kind of override as DFSG-free.  I think the DFSG-freeness is the
> >> question at hand.
> >
> > No, the DFSG as it stands has nothing to do with it. None of the current nine
> > DFSG entries speak about lawsuits, and the cost of it.
> 
> The DFSG doesn't speak about postcards or the cost of mailing them,
> but postcard licenses are considered non-free anyway.
> 
> "The DFSG doesn't specifically mention it" and "lawsuits are an
> uncommon action" are not enough to convince me that choice-of-venue
> clauses are DFSG-free.

If a licence says each time you use the software you have to write a postcard
to a sick child, or only do it one time when you first get hold of it, this is
a cost or fee or whatever that you have to pay when you install the software,
and you can't legally work around it.

The case at hand here applies to an hypothetical cost which you may encoure if
you are violating the licence, or if upstream decides to become mad (or mad at
you) and try lawsuit harrasment.

See the difference. One is an immediate and incontournable cost, while the
other is a potential cot which will only come into play at some very
improbably conditions in the majority of cases.

Friendly,

Sven Luther