Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: Choice of venue argumentation.
Sven Luther writes:
>> The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
>
> Well, any licence allowing the user to be sued discriminate against people not
> having the time or money to play legal games.
That is why most licenses don't bother to mention lawsuits at all:
they are an implicit consequence of violating the license. Likewise,
Debian considers licenses non-free if they say "You may only use this
software in legal ways" because that discriminates against dissidents
where there are repressive laws.
>> the chosen venue. Your response in the past was that the DFSG should
>> not protect copyright infringement, and it should not. The legal
>
> Yes.
>
>> fact, though, is that until a court rules on the matter, claims of
>> copyright infringement are just claims. Whether the copyright owner
>> files suit out of malice or misunderstanding, an innocent defendant
>> may still have to appear in some very inconvenient court that would
>> not otherwise have jurisdiction.
>
> Ok, but i am not convinced by the DFSG #5 invocation here. After all the same
> could happen for any wild accusation, even if there is no licence involved. I
> could for example claim that you are using code copyrighted by me in your
> proprietary software product, even though you never touched a code licenced by
> me, or do like SCO and refute the legality of the GPL.
Unless I live or do business where you or SCO are (or some court wants
to look silly in front of the world) you and SCO would have to file
suit where I am. You could not sue me in France, and SCO could not
sue me in Utah. The license is non-free when it compels me to appear
before a court that would not otherwise have jurisdiction over me.
Michael Poole
Reply to: