Re: Debian OpenSolaris port, exchange with Sun folks in webforum/MailingList
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > > > > These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
> > > > > can be "free" with a venue choice that you do not consider "sane"), so
> > > > > I must have misunderstood one of them. Could you elaborate, please?
>
> > > > If we replace "sane" with "enforcable" (which is what I think the OP was
> > > > getting at) then they are in fact compatible. A license does not become
> > > > non-free if it contains unenforcable components, unless it contains a component
> > > > that specifies that any unenforcable clause voids the whole license.
>
> > > But choice-of-venue clauses, at least in contracts, *are* enforceable in
> > > some significant jurisdictions -- like the one which hosts
> > > ftp-master.debian.org.
>
> > > So their freeness is still an issue.
>
> > I get the feeling that it is not the freeness of them which is an issue, they
> > don't really make the software more or less free after all, since they enter
> > in account only if the licence is broken
>
> No, they enter into consideration *whenever the copyright holder decides
> to sue you*. There have even been cases of one-time Linux kernel
> contributors flipping out and suing members of the community -- filing
> suit, of course, in their own home jurisdiction, where it's cheap for
> them to flood the courts with SLAPP filings. Do we really think it's a
> good idea to approve of giving copyright holders extra leverage for such
> lawsuits in their license, and just hope that none of these copyrights
> ever wind up in the hands of a hostile entity?
Sure, but this has not to do if the software is free or not. But other
considerations which have nothing to do with freedom or not.
> > , and we don't really can consider freeness definitions based on more
> > or less broken local juridictions.
>
> In the past, when we have discussed broken jurisdictions, it has been in
> the context of licenses which don't go far enough to spell out freedoms
> that are taken for granted. When we talk about choice of venue clauses,
> however, this is a clause which has been actively included in the
> license and which is (IMHO) non-free in intent. I don't think we should
> accept such licenses as free just because they don't *succeed* in being
> non-free in all jurisdictions.
I agree that we should not accept such licence, but not because they are not
free :)
And BTW, i am getting over-flamed on the opensolaris lists because of that, by
single individuals even, so we will see.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: