On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:11:09 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > > This is a choice of venue clause. > > > Choice of venue clauses are controversial and have been discussed to > > > death in the past on debian-legal: my personal opinion is that they > > > fail to meet the DFSG. > > > A fight that has been lost many times... choice of venue is fine. > > Yes. I don't like choice of venue clauses, but the project has decided they > are acceptable, I don't remember seeing such a decision. Where was it taken? By whom? Could you please cite some URL? > and it's not appropriate to inject one's personal dissenting > opinions into a license analysis on this list. This continues to come up from you, again and again. See for example the following sub-thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00042.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00047.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00077.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/06/msg00003.html I re-iterate: how can policy or practice be refined or discussed, if *any* disagreement is banned from Debian mailing lists? Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. I don't remember any clear decision by the Debian Project on this matter, otherwise I would have cited it (as I often do with the GR on the GFDL, for instance). -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpbixFcedG5c.pgp
Description: PGP signature