Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net>
>
> > Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on
> > the freedoms we expect from software.
>
> Yes they do. You have to suffer the choice-of-venue clause in order to
> get the freedoms we expect from software. That is a cost. It is a cost
> I do not want to pay just to get some software on my computer, and it
> is a cost that I cannot in good conscience advocate that Debian users
> should have to pay in order to get the freedoms of software that we
> promise comes with freedoms.
This is nonsense. A choice of venue clause does not impose any fee on
using, modifying, and distributing the software. It *only* has relevance in
the realm of litigation.
> > They do impose a potential cost on litigation related to that
> > software,
>
> No, you are completely mistaken. The risk associated with accepting a
> choice-of-venue clause hits *especially* users who have no plans to
> litigate over the license.
Again, this is totally outside the realm of using, modifying, and
distributing the software, which are the basic freedoms we expect. It's not
pretty, but it's outside the scope of the DFSG.
> > but the DFSG shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the
> > legal system.
>
> It is not being used as a weapon to change the legal system. The legal
> system is fine as it is. We're merely protecting users from having a
> weapon trained on them that the legal system does not ordinarily
> provide.
>
> > It should be used to protect and guarantee that we have certain
> > freedoms in relation to using, modifying, and distributing
> > software. Choice of venue clauses don't change these freedoms.
>
> Choice of venue means that one has to accept to lose a pre-existing
> protection before one gets the freedom to use, modify and distribute
> the software. We do not want to impose on our users that they have to
> lose that protection just because they depend on Debian.
We accept that a user can have other restrictions on the modification of
the software. We accept that a user can have restrictions on the
distribution of software. We can also accept such a restriction that lies
completely outside these basic freedoms.
Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free to
not install such software if they choose. We can't completely protect
people from being sued to begin with.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: