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

[Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>> You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which
>> isn't very realistic.
> 
> No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no
> reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* one is forced to defend oneself
> in an unknown legal system with a foreign language).
> 
> And even if a lawyer proves necessary, standard insurance will usually
> cover his fees. But I'm bloody sure that a standard insurance policy
> will *not* cover my cost in cases where I have previously agreed to
> let myself be sued in a foreign country.

My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and
housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary
legal cases. In any case, "Discriminates against poor people who have an
insurance policy that covers legal cases in their home country but not
elsewhere"? That's beginning to sound a bit fringe.
 
>> No. The point of the GPL is to allow others to use, share and extend
>> your software and to ensure that their derivative works remain free
>> themselves.
> 
> In that order.

Not at all. The strength of the copyleft in the GPL suggests that
they're all treated with equal priority.

>> If you can't do the latter, you might as well have released it into
>> the public domain.
> 
> Yes, but if you don't do the former, the latter has nothing to do with
> freedom anyway.

Right. This sort of clause doesn't impair your ability to use, share or
extend software except in the case of someone suing you, which *they can
do anyway*.

>> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
>> not just the users.
> 
> Yes, but the "if you stick to using software from main, we will do our
> best to check that you have such-and-such rights" part of it is a
> promise to the users. There are other parts of the social contract
> that make promises to other parts of the community.

And what rights are we taking away from them? The right not to be sued?
We don't provide them with that right in the first place.

>> In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more
>> practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses.
> 
> That does not change the fact that we would be going back on our
> promise to the users if we started including software that required
> them to subject themselves to that risking.

What risk? I can already sue you in the UK, if I want. I could forge
evidence that suggested that you'd agreed to that. I could expose you to
the same costs without you ever having touched a piece of software that
was under a choice of venue clause. How are we protecting our users from
anything here?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org