On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:33:14PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> [2004.06.01.1951 +0200]: > > The choice of law is my choice and not of the person who doesn't > > follow the rules of the license. I am convinced that the choice > > of law has no influence on the *intend* of the license and as such > > cannot cause a license to fail the DFSG - which only describes > > what the intend of a license is (it is written in a general way). > > i am also not clear on that. I don't think the DFSG denies a choice > of legal venue. > > nevertheless, is it needed? imagine John Doe copies your software, > modifies it, and screws the licence. you can do one of two things: > prosecute john in his country, or prosecute john in your country. > the former's a pain and not possible due to financial issues. the > latter is what you'll do. > > now, whether the licence states that your hometown is the chosen > legal venue or not does not make a difference to john doe. if john's > country shields him or does not cooperate in handing him over to > face the charges, then there's nothing you can do. john already > violated your licence. he'll laugh at you if you insist on the legal > venue choice. If you want a license that favours the author(s) over the community then you want a proprietary license. Free ones don't do that. Choice-of-venue clauses are decidedly non-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature