[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: sendmail X license (fwd)

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:24:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Richard A Nelson <cowboy@debian.org>
> >                    SENDMAIL OPEN SOURCE LICENSE
> > Use, modification and redistribution (including distribution of any
> > modified or derived work) of the Software in source and binary forms is
> > permitted only if each of the following conditions are met:
> I don't think debian-legal is aware of any jurisdiction wherein a
> copyright holder can legally restrict *use* of copies of his work,
> when the copies themselves have been legally made and distributed.

Technically, I think the US is such a jurisdiction, under some of the
more obscure clauses of the DMCA. But that stuff isn't licensable and
so isn't relevant.

> >    This license is governed by California law and both of us
> >    agree that for any dispute arising out of or relating to this Software,
> >    that jurisdiction and venue is proper in San Francisco or Alameda
> >    counties.
> That is a stinker, I think. It appears to mean that if I use sendmail,
> and the upstream authors for some reason think that I'm violating
> their terms, I am required to go to San Francisco to protest my
> innocense. This is a non-free condition, I think.

Yeah, keyword is "venue", these are no good; it's an choice between a
flight at your expense or be tried in absentia (I don't think
extradition applies to copyright cases, although I can imagine the US
trying to pull it off).

> It would be OK for the Sendmail people to say "if the user wants to
> sue *us*, he must do it in SF"

I'm not really sure about that one.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: