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

Re: Mozilla Public License is non-free: stipulates court venue ?

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:31:44PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
> > Choice of venue aside, I question whether "if you sue me and lose, you pay me
> > my costs" is free.  That might be a good policy for laws (or perhaps not; I'm
> > not very informed of the legal theory behind that), but I'm not sure if it
> > belongs in a free license.
> The point of DFSG (I thought) is that you can do free software things
> such as using, modifying, and redistributing the software.  This clause
> doesn't interfere with that sort of thing, so it would seem to be okay.

It's definitely related to use, modification and distribution.  In order
to do those things, I have to agree to abide by your terms if I sue you,
instead of the laws of the relevant jurisdiction ("if you sue me and lose,
pay up").

(I still don't know if it's free or not--but since the MPL has clearer
DFSG problems, there's no need to come to a conclusion on that, unless
a similar term comes up in another license without the other problems.)

FWIW, I agree with others that the MPL is definitely DFSG-unfree but not a
problem since the it's is either dual-licensed under the GPL or--according
to their webpage--will be soon.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: