On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:19:53PM +0200, luther@debian.org wrote: > Thanks for not CCing me as i have repeatedly asked here. Please fix your mailer to set a corresponding header, instead of expecting every subscriber to this list to do your work for you. > >On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:07:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > >> Furthermore, as the choice of law is the french law, preliminary information > >> seem to indicate that any procedure should be domiciliated at the domicil of > >> the defendor, which would make this clause illegal and thus void. > >Good, then upstream should not object to this void clause being removed > >from the license. > Sure whatever. i have done my homework, asked for advice, which altough legal > was not exactly of this field, and this is really non conclusive. > And i will _NOT_ go to upstream about this issue without solid evidence that > this is really a problem, evidence that i have not seen upto now. Bogus clauses in licenses are always a problem because they're either not really void, or because they can have side effects that render the entire license invalid (or at a minimum, the make the license unnecessarily verbose and confusing, resulting in an imbalance of wealth in favor of lawyers). What becomes clear to me is that you're not actually interested in resolving any of the problems with the QPL; you're only interested in getting a rubber-stamp from debian-legal that this license is ok, or barring that, arguing the list into submission. You provide no "solid evidence" that the choice of venue clause is truly void, but rather expect us to provide the contrary. Debian cannot afford to ship software under licenses that contain requirements that we cannot "solidly prove" are harmful to us. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature