Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Scripsit David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> 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.
Yes it does. By accepting such a clause the user waives his right to
have the specified court reject nuisance suits against him on grounds
of insufficient jurisdiction.
He had this right before he accepted the license. He loses it by
accepting. If he has to lose anything to get the required freedoms,
that is a fee.
> It *only* has relevance in the realm of litigation.
There is no way for the user to avoid the realm of litigation. He does
not decide whether the author files a nuisance suit against him or
not.
>> 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.
The license says that you cannot get the right to modify and
distribute the software unless you accept the risk.
> It's not pretty, but it's outside the scope of the DFSG.
The right to modify and distribute is within the scope of the DSFG.
By extension it is also within the scope of the DSFG *what* one has to
do to get the right to modify and distribute.
>> 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 the grant of right to modify may not cover all
thinkable forms of modification. That simply means that it is
possible to grant wider rights than it is necessary to grant for the
DFSG.
This is qualitatively different from saying "you only get any right to
modify if you agree to give up a completely unrelated right that you
already have".
> We accept that a user can have restrictions on the distribution of
> software.
We accept that the grant of right to distribute may not cover all
thinkable forms of distribution. That simply means that it is
possible to grant wider rights than it is necessary to grant for the
DFSG.
This is qualitatively different from saying "you only get any right to
distribute if you agree to give up a completely unrelated right that
you already have".
> We can also accept such a restriction that lies completely outside
> these basic freedoms.
We'are not talking about "restriction" of a grant. There is no grant
to restrict in a choice-of-venue clause. It is simply a demand that
the user waives a right that he would have without accepting the
license. That is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT form simply granting the
right to do A without also granting the right to do B.
> Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free to
> not install such software if they choose.
By putting the software in main, we tell our users that they get
certain freedoms without having to give up anything to get those
freedoms. That is *not* the case when the license for the software
requires the licensee to accept a choice-of-venue clause. Therefore,
putting the software in main would constitute lying.
> We can't completely protect people from being sued to begin with.
That is irrelevant. The relevant part is that the license requires
people to *give up* protection that they *already have* in the absense
of the license.
--
Henning Makholm "Monarki, er ikke noget materielt ... Borger!"
Reply to: