On 2004-07-23 16:00:10 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:[...], the need to hire a lawyer local to Versailles is a significant additional expense an abusive licensor can make the defendant pay, apparently on a whim.Well, some could argue that you could directly write to the judge then, and explain why the claim of the upstream author should not apply, and maybe makemention of the harrasment you are suffering from his part.
Do French courts not require a defendant to be physically represented at the court?
I am not familiar with this kind of stuff, so if you have hard evidence thatthis would not be possible, please tell me about this.
Likewise, especially given that French courts are foreign to me. Hell, I don't even know whether French courts will apply a licence written in English without both sides consenting.
[...] all this still doesn't make it non-free accordying to the DFSG.
A licensor-determined requirement to pay for representation in a far-away court (extra to any cost of attending the local normal court), does seem a fairly clear fee that we have to be prepared to pay for distributing a QPL'd work, rather than QPL granting free redistribution. I think I am referring to DFSG 1, even if we can't agree whether it covers termination clauses.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast