Re: BitTorrent Open Source License (Proposed Changes)
Michael K. Edwards writes:
> Anyway, as to personal jurisdiction -- this is a legal principle lost
> in the mists of time, adapted in modern times to fit the realities of
> commerce without personal contact. A "choice of venue" clause is not
> In sum, trying to shoehorn any of the warranty / liability / breach of
> contract calculus into a box marked "fee", in order to test it against
> DFSG #1, is almost as silly as calling it "discrimination" for the
> purposes of #5 or #6. This is all about risk management, and where
> the risks are not routine, I agree with Sean that relying on risk
> assessment by a self-selected crew of ideologues with brazen contempt
> for real-world law and no fiduciary relationship to anyone is not too
> swift -- whether or not they have law degrees (or university chairs in
> law and legal history). Not all debian-legal participants deserve to
> be tarred with that brush, but the ones who do are numerous enough and
> loud enough to give me pause.
All rambling and ad hominem attacks aside, DFSG analysis is not at all
about risk; it is about determining whether or not the license imposes
non-free restrictions or requirements on licensees. Argument from
authority will not change that, particularly since it is unclear that
anyone has -- or will ever have -- relevant experience in law or
fiduciary duty you specified.
Michael Poole
Reply to: