Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On 1/26/06, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit?
I've heard mention of the concept.
Have you heard of 425.16?
(It's visible at http://www.casp.net/cal425.html)
Ok, I'm assuming that free software is in the public interest, but I
don't think that's a difficult legal argument.
And, yes, I'm aware that that's the law in california and that
venu is something different, but I don't think a judge is going
to want to violate that law even if the plantiff is trying to claim
that it is irrelevant to the defendant.
> Frankly, I find it amazing that even when such clauses are advanced by a
> corporation like Adobe, who has been a veritable *poster child* for
> corporate hostility to Free Software and the concept of a liberal IP regime,
> there are still people who don't get that this additional exposure is a
> loaded gun.
I like the analogy presented in one of the web articles I read
on choice of venue -- legally it's more like a stray bullet than
an aimed shot.
I still see this more as an economic cost containment issue than
a legal move, and so far the arguments about "tentacles of evil"
haven't contained enough specifics to change my mind on that.
> If as Nathanael points out the clause were rewritten to be strictly
> defensive, I would have no problem with it; but that's definitely not what
> we have here today.
I don't care about this distinction but I accept that you do.