Le jeudi 24 mai 2007 à 15:36 -0400, Michael Poole a écrit : > > Please stop the choice-of-law bullshit. This clause is moot, we can > > ignore it. > > Moot in what venues? I live in a state that has enacted the Uniform > Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), which -- among other > things -- gives effect[1] to choice of venue clauses in shrink-wrap > licenses unless a party can show that the choice is "unreasonable and > unjust". US courts have made that barrier rather high in practice. > > I'm not a fan of judging licenses free because Debian thinks certain > clauses are moot. If the clause is in fact moot, the license is > buggy. If the clause is not moot -- at the time of upload or some > point afterwards -- it can cause significant harm. The reason why the relation between the author and the user would come to court can not be the user suing the author, only the author suing the user for violating his copyright. I don't know about the US - and if this is enough to make a license non-free, this will give another reason to resurrect the non-us archive - but in other countries, the author could only sue the user in the latter's juridiction (if the "juridiction" word ever makes sense). Whatever is written in the license text will not change that. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=