Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
Yorick Cool writes:
> If the default rules of law force you to accept a lawsuit brought upon
> you in New York, then a license with no choice of venue clause very
> much does force you to go to NY if you don't want to.
It should be quite plain that the license has nothing to do with that
imposition.
> The critical point that you are missing is that when a license doesn't
> state a rule on a particular point, the default rules of law are de
> facto incorporated in it. Hence it is absurd to consider non-free a
> license because of a clause which shall have an effect very much
> comparable to what a license whith no such clause would
> have. (Obviously, this only applies if we consider the "silent"
> license as free.)
I do not miss that point at all; I think that the default rules of law
are preferable to the imposition of a forum selected by the licensor.
> Michael> Thus it is a form of discrimination. It imposes costs (conditional,
> Michael> but still costs) on some people that it does not impose on
> Michael> others.
>
> As does every single license on earth, because you could be sued in a
> foreign country or not depending on the law of the land.
Again, this is not something imposed by the license. The fact that a
license is mute as to human rights or being able to use cryptographic
software does not mean that it is non-free in countries that neglect
human rights or that outlaw cryptography. Quite simply, a free
software license should not attempt to correct wrongs that exist
outside of the software.
Michael Poole
Reply to: