Re: Why is choice of venue non-free ?
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 22:50:01 +0000
Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I do not see how a free software developer trying to squeeze money out
> of a megacorporation, and having to spend a bit extra to travel to
> their country and do it (before a long and very expensive legal
> battle), is equally unfair as a megacorporation picking on some random
> user and giving them a choice between (a) an expensive trip halfway
> around the world to appear in court and defend themselves against a
> fraudulant lawsuit, that could only become a problem if they don't
> show up to defend yourself, or (b) effective exile from the country in
> question, because the case was decided against them due to the
> defendant not appearing in court, and so visiting that country would
> result in their arrest.
> Somebody who is trying to 'enforce their copyrights' is always going
> to have to spend a lot of money on it, and should be prepared to do
> that; they can try to bill their travel costs to the defendant if they
> win. A user should never have to be prepared to defend themselves
> against this sort of crap, aside from the minimal response demanded by
> a local suit. They just aren't in the same class.
A licence is practically meaningless is the copyright holder doesnt
have the resources to defend it.
Your want to protect end users by make it harder for the individual
copyright holders to defend their work.
Given that most free software is written by the little bloke, i consider
your stance is counterproductive.