On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:23:42 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote:
[...]
> For what it's worth, I do not believe that DFSG #5 is a sensible
> reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free. The sensible
> reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free is the following
> general principle:
>
> A license can only be free if one can always "accept" the license
> without losing any right that one had before one received the
> license.
>
> (Those who think that licenses are not contracts and do not need to be
> accepted, feel free to substitue "use the rights granted" instead of
> "accept").
>
> This is, in my opinion, the natural and direct extension of the
> explicit language that a license cannot require "royalties or other
> fees" to be paid in exchange for the rights described in the
> DFSG. Plain and simple, if it requires that you give up *anything*
> that you already had before, then it's not free.
You are right, DFSG#1 is more suitable than DFSG#5 to conclude that
choice-of-venue is non-free.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp_l__FPoJfm.pgp
Description: PGP signature