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

Re: IBM Public License (again)

On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 06:18:17PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however:
> > > "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation."
> > > 
> > > That's not a legitimate requirement of a free software license, is it?
> > 
> > No.  I didn't notice that earlier (mostly because I only looked at the
> > clauses the original license review request mentioned), but that clause
> > clearly makes the license non-free.
> I'm not so sure.  Choice of venue already limits the different ways
> that a party can bring suit.  This just says that you have to do it
> with a judge or arbitration.  In essence, it is limiting the venue
> even more.  But the venue doesn't necessarily favor one party over the
> other.

I call bullshit.  Would you waive your right against self-incrimination?

Before tossing aside the right to jury trial as a bauble, I suggest you
research English and Colonial American history.

As Alan Dershowitz put it, "rights come from wrongs".  We generally can
only enumerate the rights we are supposed to enjoy because people are
always coming up with creative new ways to fuck over their fellow human

I've long been uncomfortable with the IBMPL, and the more I see of it,
the more queasy I get.

G. Branden Robinson                |     I'm a firm believer in not drawing
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     trend lines before you have data
branden@debian.org                 |     points.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Tim Ottinger

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: