Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

[Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com>]

On 1/26/06, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit?

I've heard mention of the concept.

Have you heard of  425.16?

(It's visible at http://www.casp.net/cal425.html)

Ok, I'm assuming that free software is in the public interest, but I
don't think that's a difficult legal argument.

And, yes, I'm aware that that's the law in california and that
venu is something different, but I don't think a judge is going
to want to violate that law even if the plantiff is trying to claim
that it is irrelevant to the defendant.

> Frankly, I find it amazing that even when such clauses are advanced by a
> corporation like Adobe, who has been a veritable *poster child* for
> corporate hostility to Free Software and the concept of a liberal IP regime,
> there are still people who don't get that this additional exposure is a
> loaded gun.

I like the analogy presented in one of the web articles I read
on choice of venue -- legally it's more like a stray bullet than
an aimed shot.

I still see this more as an economic cost containment issue than
a  legal move, and so far the arguments about "tentacles of evil"
haven't contained enough specifics to change my mind on that.

> If as Nathanael points out the clause were rewritten to be strictly
> defensive, I would have no problem with it; but that's definitely not what
> we have here today.

Ok.

I don't care about this distinction but I accept that you do.

Thanks,

--
Raul