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

[Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net>]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:18:00PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> 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?

Its effect is a slightly higher risk than a license which does not contain a
COV clause.  I haven't seen anyone present a compelling argument as to why
this difference in risk warrants a non-free label.

> > 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?

Another strawman.  The point is that being sued without a COV clause already
has the potential to create a financial hardship on the defendant, due to an
inherent discrimination present in the law.  Since the COV clause does not 
substantially increase the costs of defending oneself, it cannot be
construed as discrimination per se.

--Adam
-- 
Adam McKenna  <adam@debian.org>  <adam@flounder.net>