Re: The BitTorrent Open Source License
Scripsit Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:21:57 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> The Source Code for any
>> version of Licensed Product or Modifications that you distribute must
>> remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it
>> initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a
>> subsequent version of said Licensed Product or Modifications has been
>> made available. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code
>> version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution
>> Mechanism is maintained by a third party.
> Mmmmh... This worries me.
> It smells like a distribution restriction: does it pass DFSG#1?
I don't think so. But even if it did, Debian's mirror network itself
does not comply with it, so the issue of theoretical freedom is mostly
moot. (We don't want to make our mirror operators or ftpmasters
legally dependent on the continued operation of snapshot.debian.net
for example).
>> whom to contact. If you obtain such knowledge after you make any
>> Modifications available as described in Section 4(b), you shall
>> promptly modify the LEGAL file in all copies you make available
>> thereafter and shall take other steps (such as notifying appropriate
>> mailing lists or newsgroups) reasonably calculated to inform those who
>> received the Licensed Product from you that new knowledge has been
>> obtained.
> Is this acceptable?
> A dissident that learns about a legal issue, must inform those to whom
> he/she distributed the Licensed Product, do I understand it correctly?
Well, he must take steps "reasonably calculated" to inform
recipients. It is conceivable that the dissident's own situation can
be taken into account when deciding what is reasonable, and in any
case the language in the license does not seem to demand that he
discloses his identity.
>> You expressly agree that any litigation
>> relating to this license shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the
>> Federal Courts of the Northern District of California or the Superior
>> Court of the County of Santa Clara, California (as appropriate), with
>> venue lying in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party
>> responsible for costs including, without limitation, court costs and
>> reasonable attorneys fees and expenses.
> Choice of venue, which is non-free.
I agree. Though the usual badness of venue choice is somewhat
mitigated by the promise to pay the user's legal costs if they sue him
and lose. However, who says that the author has money to pay with?
>> Any law or regulation that provides that the language of a
>> contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to
>> this License.
> It's a kind of magic, I suppose! ;-)
Wow, I want one of those!
--
Henning Makholm "It was intended to compile from some approximation to
the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined,
because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the
dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available."
Reply to: