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

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Adam McKenna writes:

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Please go back and read the rest of this thread, since your arguments
>> were previously made and countered.  You argue that since choice of
>> venue is a small (or putatively reasonable) cost or form of
>> discrimination, it can be ignored; the DFSG do not allow that.
>
> It's not a cost, it's a risk.  There are plenty of other risks that we take
> when we distribute software, that we consider acceptable.  What makes this 
> one unacceptable?

As you pointed out, choice of venue does not introduce the risk of
being sued: it adds to the expected cost of being sued.  How do you
express choice of venue as a risk?

> As far as discrimination, it's only a form of discrimination insofar as the
> ability to sue discriminates against those for whom defending themselves will
> be a financial hardship.  This is a problem with the law, not the license.

Would a license that prohibits use by a fascist regime be acceptable,
since what makes a regime fascist is its law rather than the license?

Michael Poole