Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

[Nic Suzor <nic@hades.cable.nu>]

* Henning Makholm (henning@makholm.net) wrote:
> First, I cannot imagine any situation where Debian would even
> *consider* suing anybody over anything they do to software that we
> simply distribute. On the contrary, the whole point of the Social
> Contract and the DFSG is to promise users that we try to make certain
> that they *won't* get sued.
> 
> Second, "Debian" is not a legally competent entitiy; it can neither
> make binding promises nor file lawsuits. (That's what we have SPI
> for). The legally competent persons distributing the software are
> the maintainer, the ftp-masters, and the mirror admins. They may want,
> personally, to reserve the theoretical right to sue, but it beyond my
> imagination why they would want to, or indeed which right they have in
> the first place that could be reserved.

Waiver of the right to sue for copyright is a non-issue; the work is
stated to be in the public domain, so there are no exclusive rights that
can be sued upon. 

However, the licence states that the distributor will not sue or
help to sue for any reason, where the result would be that the use,
modification or redistribution of the work would be restricted. Perhaps 
this is limited by the line above, 'in a manner consistent with the 
non-existance of Intellectual Property (IP) laws'. Either way, it means
at least that you are possibly waiving rights to sue for trademark 
infringement, or passing off, etc. It's not hard to envisage a situation 
where Debian (or the direct distributors) need to enforce their 
trademarks, or commence a passing off action, and possibly prevent the
distribution of the work (or derivatives - 'the work for perpetuity').

Even though Debian's IP is vested in SPI, a distribution by the
ftp-masters etc. under such terms  may prejudice a potential action by
SPI. 

I think it's pretty bold to give a forbearance to sue on those terms;
releasing the work completely in the public domain, without the extra
warranties, would achieve the same purpose, because there are no
exclusive rights to sue under. The remainder of the 'licence' seems to be
mainly explanation / ettiquette provisions anyway. It would probably be
polite to keep these sections, but not in the form of a copyright
licence.


Regards,

Nic Suzor
nic@hades.cable.nu