On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:05:32PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:44:05AM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote: > > > > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free > > > > to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely > > > > protect people from being sued to begin with. > > > C'mon David! :-( > > > "We are not imposing anything on our users. They are free to > > > not install Acrobat Reader if they choose. Consequently Acrobat > > > Reader can be moved to main." > > > This is nonsense... :-( > > Right ! Also count that mirror operators carring such software could find > > themselves in a baseless lawsuit adventure while being located or not in some > > exotic jurisdictions. If they manage to filter such crap somehow, then > > ftpmasters could serve as last resort being targeted for no good reasons. > Do any of these choice of venue clauses impinge on simple redistribution? > If so, I'd *definitely* be against those specific ones. If they don't > relate to the simple redistribution that our mirror operators do, then I > don't think this is an issue we have to worry about. Sure; the distribution rights are contingent on accepting the specified court's jurisdiction over the license agreement. This impinges simple redistribution. Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature