On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:16:10AM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: Bas> Hi Yorick! Hello Bas! Bas> You wrote: Bas> Bas> > <quote> Bas> > 1. Debian will remain 100% free [...] Bas> > I agree it doesn't say "we promise to distribute each and every piece Bas> > of software that could fall into the guidelines' reach", Bas> Bas> Exactly. It says: "we won't distribute stuff that doesn't adhere to the Bas> guidelines". If, according to debian-legal and the ftp masters, choice Bas> of venue clauses are a violation of the guidelines, we can therefore not Bas> distribute them. Well I obviously agree. My point was that the proposed interpretation was drifting so far from the DFSG that it wasn't arguable that it wasn't an addition and not a mere interpretation. Anyway, we agree on this principle. Bas> So, how, according to you, does such a clause _not_ violate DFSG #5? The main argument to which I adhere, is flatly that such clauses don't discriminate against people at all. Let's see, what does discriminating mean? " To make distinctions on the basis of class or category" according to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discriminate . Well, to me a clause that says that everyone, disregarding any kind of distinction, is submitted to exactly the same rule, is the very opposite of discriminating. The fact that the result of that rule is more or less comfortable depending on to whom it is applied does not change the fact that everyone is treated in the very same manner. To consider that licenses with choice of venue clauses discriminate against people would actually imply that licenses without them are even more discriminating. Why? Because the argument is based on the fact that different people suffer a different degree of inconvenience because of it. Well, the same goes for licenses without such clauses. Depending on the country in which a complaint based on that license is filed in, the competent forum will be different. This means that people for whom application of private international law leads to being only summoned to court in their home country are advantaged over those to whom application of private international law would imply being tried in a foreign country. Some people would have it easier than others and this would be without any justification. At least with forum clauses, it is clear for all where you shall be summoned, if at all. As I have already said, the main problem here is that geography will always favor some people over others. There is no way out of it, so let's not pretend some solutions are better than others. They aren't. Cheers, -- Yorick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature