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

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

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:25:16PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> 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:

Ok, and has it occured to you that this point of law clause could also be used
for people suing the upstream author over the licence ? 

> 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.

Bah, do the dissident really care ? They are dissidents anyway.

> >> 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.

Ok, this seems indeed similar to what i was told. Now, what would be the
legality of that claim in the licence ?

And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors based on
the licence ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther