Re: BitTorrent Open Source License (Proposed Changes)
Sean Kellogg <skellogg <at> u.washington.edu> writes:
[8< Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8<]
> Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free. But if
> they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great for users of
> Debian! I'm surprised that folks on this list are comfortable with such
> strong choice-of-law provisions. Again, I don't believe such clauses are
> non-free, but I believe I've heard the argument made before. (A license has
> got to be interpreted under laws somewhere... might as well establish the
> laws prior to the agreement instead of fighting it out in court.)
I was under the impression that choice-of-law was OK for most, but
choice-of-venue was cause for non-DFSG-ness.
[8< Cut Section 4b and rewrite 8<]
> What's the concern here? The GPL only requires that I provide a source
> distribution method for three years (clause 3(b))... why can't this license
> only require source distribution for six months? This change seems
> unnecessary to pass under the DSFG if the GPL is acceptable.
The GPL gives you a choice of three methods - one of which is to provide the
source at the same time with no requirement to keep it available. This license
forces you to keep the source for any version you distribute electronically
online for 6 months for every version you distribute - which is much much longer
than the average source is kept in unstable, for example.
Michael Janssen -- Jamuraa -- email@example.com -- firstname.lastname@example.org