On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:45:33PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: Michael> Yorick Cool writes: Michael> Michael> > If the default rules of law force you to accept a lawsuit brought upon Michael> > you in New York, then a license with no choice of venue clause very Michael> > much does force you to go to NY if you don't want to. Michael> Michael> It should be quite plain that the license has nothing to do with that Michael> imposition. It should be obvious that the silence of a licence is an implicit acceptance of the legal effects of laws it could have rejected. Since it could have changed those effects, by not speaking, the licence is taking a positive stance. Just like the silence of non-copyleft licences on any conditions for redistribution are an important feature -- not a bug -- of those licences. What a licence does not say is as important as what it says, and should not be dismissed as something totally unconnected with the licence. Michael> > The critical point that you are missing is that when a license doesn't Michael> > state a rule on a particular point, the default rules of law are de Michael> > facto incorporated in it. Hence it is absurd to consider non-free a Michael> > license because of a clause which shall have an effect very much Michael> > comparable to what a license whith no such clause would Michael> > have. (Obviously, this only applies if we consider the "silent" Michael> > license as free.) Michael> Michael> I do not miss that point at all; I think that the default rules of law Michael> are preferable to the imposition of a forum selected by the Michael> licensor. And why is that, if the effects are the same? Is it just out of some kind of irrational hatred of licensors? You have failed to show any negative effects that come from the licences taking a stance on forum instead of not saying anything. Michael> The fact that a Michael> license is mute as to human rights or being able to use cryptographic Michael> software does not mean that it is non-free in countries that neglect Michael> human rights or that outlaw cryptography. Quite simply, a free Michael> software license should not attempt to correct wrongs that exist Michael> outside of the software. I totally agree. That is why I consider the burden imposed by forum rules, be they contractual (deriving from a license) or legal (deriving from a law) to be outside of the scope of free software to fix. They are wrongs (if indeed they are wrongs) which "exist outside of the software" as you put it. Which is why I don't want to make that question one which free software should address, and I don't view forum clauses as non-free. You are the one trying to fix something in this by rejecting these clauses. -- Yorick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature