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

Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main

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

Reply to: