On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:25:41AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: Non-developer, non-maintainer, non-applicant: Check. > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > > For a choice of venue clause though, it only stops some people from > > being willing to participate; just as potentially giving up patent rights > > stops Microsoft from being willing to distribute Linux. > The requirement to pet a cat, even if it is only required if > convenient, also only stops some people from being willing to > participate. It has also been considered non-free since the beginning > of Debian. Condescending dismissal of arguments: Check. Is it really not obvious why -legal isn't taken very seriously sometimes? I don't consider "the venue for deciding conflicts is chosen in advance" as remotely equivalent to "you must pet a cat". An analogy I would accept is something of the form "you don't get to exercise your right/ability to ____" where "____" is an action, not the lack of an action. "enforce your patents against other users of this software" would be one example, "distribute compiled code without source code" would be another. If you're claiming "you don't get to exercise your right to argue about jurisdiction" is equivalent to "you must pet a cat", then, IMO, you need to argue the same thing about "you don't get to exercise your patent rights". Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature