Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <email@example.com>
> On 13 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > It is not. Consider this scenario:
> > the author of the software might sue A for breach of contract, even
> > though A is outside of the jurisdiction of the local laws that he
> > broke originally.
> I think this scenario leads to an very gray area. Where does the author
> want to sue him?
Perhaps because the author's former boyfriend left her in favor of A.
Perhaps because the author, in his professional life, trades with
[IEFEOPS] and has discreetly be informed that he may lose a contract
if he lets A walk around unpunished. Perhaps the author and A are
neighbours and got into war about playing loud music late at night?
It is fine to judge licenses from a "they're probably nice people,
and why would they want to sue" position when judging them for one's
own use. But when we're judging licenses on behalf of all Debian
users, we have to set higher standards.
Otherwise we could just as well accept "This is public domain and must
not be sold" pseudo-licenses -- for the vast majority of authors of
such programs would never dream of suing somebody just because they
make Debian CDs and sell them at whatever price the market will
sustain (which is not much).
Henning Makholm "We will discuss your youth another time."