Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

>>> In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
>>> people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
>>> unlikely to deter them.

>> The point is that the cost *for me* of defending myself is much more
>> favourable.

> You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which
> isn't very realistic.

No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no
reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* one is forced to defend oneself
in an unknown legal system with a foreign language).

And even if a lawyer proves necessary, standard insurance will usually
cover his fees. But I'm bloody sure that a standard insurance policy
will *not* cover my cost in cases where I have previously agreed to
let myself be sued in a foreign country.

>> In the free software world, the point of having a license is to
>> *allow* others to use, share and extend your software.

> No. The point of the GPL is to allow others to use, share and extend
> your software and to ensure that their derivative works remain free
> themselves.

In that order.

> If you can't do the latter, you might as well have released it into
> the public domain.

Yes, but if you don't do the former, the latter has nothing to do with
freedom anyway.

> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
> not just the users.

Yes, but the "if you stick to using software from main, we will do our
best to check that you have such-and-such rights" part of it is a
promise to the users. There are other parts of the social contract
that make promises to other parts of the community.

> Arguing that the rights of the user are the only ones that matter
> suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it restricts the rights
> of users in favour of the rights of developers.

The GPL does give the user those rights we promise to users that they
will have. Whether or not it gives any rights beyond that is
immaterial.

> In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more
> practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses.

That does not change the fact that we would be going back on our
promise to the users if we started including software that required
them to subject themselves to that risking.

> The fact that it has the potential to be used against users doesn't
> make it evil,

Who is speaking about evil?

-- 
Henning Makholm                   "The great secret, known to internists and
                         learned early in marriage by internists' wives, but
               still hidden from the general public, is that most things get
         better by themselves. Most things, in fact, are better by morning."