On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 01:46:42PM +1100, Glenn L McGrath wrote: > On 03 Feb 2005 08:28:36 -0500 > Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote: > > > There are several arguments why choice of venue violates the DFSG. > > > > The first, relatively weak (since it is not clearly based in the DFSG) > > is that having to defend yourself in a foreign jurisdiction acts as an > > improper fee or charge for using the software. > > Its just as unfair to make it harder for open source copyright holders > to enforce their copyrights. I do not see how a free software developer trying to squeeze money out of a megacorporation, and having to spend a bit extra to travel to their country and do it (before a long and very expensive legal battle), is equally unfair as a megacorporation picking on some random user and giving them a choice between (a) an expensive trip halfway around the world to appear in court and defend themselves against a fraudulant lawsuit, that could only become a problem if they don't show up to defend yourself, or (b) effective exile from the country in question, because the case was decided against them due to the defendant not appearing in court, and so visiting that country would result in their arrest. Somebody who is trying to 'enforce their copyrights' is always going to have to spend a lot of money on it, and should be prepared to do that; they can try to bill their travel costs to the defendant if they win. A user should never have to be prepared to defend themselves against this sort of crap, aside from the minimal response demanded by a local suit. They just aren't in the same class. If the license said "By using this software, you grant that the licensor may at any time demand you travel to $address" then nobody would be trying to claim it's free. This is not all that different. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature