Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
Jeremy Hankins writes:
> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes:
> >
> > This is called the "tentacles of evil" test: the license must be free,
> > even if the copyright holder becomes hostile. Even if the copyright
> > holder has an upstanding legal reputation, the license can't depend on
> > that; copyright and companies can change hands.
>
> Yes, but (as you point out in your pine example) that can happen
> regardless of license. There are some things we simply can't protect
> against.
Indeed, but we can refuse to make it easier for a malicious actor or
more costly for their victims (where those victims become such by
using Debian).
> The argument against choice-of-venue that I've heard is that it might be
> a choice that has strange or restrictive law that heavily favors the
> copyright holder. As far as I know (and I haven't read the whole
> thread) no one's making that argument about California. And to a
> certain extent, a nations laws always are able to remove freedoms that
> free software would like to permit, and there's not a lot we can do
> about it. Let's not tilt at windmills here.
That would be the argument against choice-of-law clauses. The
argument against choice-of-venue is that any licensor can drag a user
into court in the licensor's preferred venue rather than a venue that
the user would otherwise be subject to.
Michael Poole
Reply to: