Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: Choice of venue argumentation.

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:22:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> 
> >> live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
> >> Nice for doing X?
> >
> > I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question at
> > hand here.
> 
> Contract law can override that.  That does not mean we have to accept
> that kind of override as DFSG-free.  I think the DFSG-freeness is the
> question at hand.

No, the DFSG as it stands has nothing to do with it. None of the current nine
DFSG entries speak about lawsuits, and the cost of it.

> >> Choice of venue clauses take away a right normally accorded to people
> >> outside that venue.  Would you explain why that is not discrimination
> >> against those people under DFSG#5?
> >
> > Because the people concerned are still free to use the software under rights
> > given by the licence. The suing stuff is a pathological case, which doesn't
> > come into account for speaking about the DFSG #5, at least that is my
> > interpretation. 
> 
> I think I am missing part of your argument.  Modifying and
> redistributing the compiler for a dialect of ML is a pathological
> case, but the rest of the DFSG has to apply to it anyway (to qualify
> for main or contrib).  We don't ignore the DFSG when its provisions
> are irrelevant to most users, because that is true for most of them.

No, the normal use case of all the software we distribute is people using it,
modifying it, and redistributing it. It doesn't include lawsuits.

Friendly,

Sven LUther