Re: QPL non-DFSG compliance? What future for OCaml in Debian?

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:00:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-19 16:33:34 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> 
> wrote:
> 
> >>   1) point 6c of the QPL fails the chinese dissident or desert 
> >>island tests.
> >>   Apart from the the dubious justification of those tests (i would 
> >>much have
> >>   prefered particular DFSG points), i believe that the licence sets 
> >>implicitly
> >>   the cost of data transfer to the person requiring the sources. 
> >>[...]
> 
> I am still contemplating whether the actual source transfer is a fee 
> in itself. There have been some interesting replies to that idea.
> 
> >>   2) the court of venue issue. All lwasuits must be filled at 
> >>Versailles.
> >>
> >>   Well, i am no lawyer, but i hardly find this non-free [...]
> 
> Why is it free? Why should the licensor be allowed to make any 
> licensee to represent themselves in France? Much of your argument 
> seems to be about choice of law rather than choice of venue. I think 
> most people accept choice of law.

The exact text of the licence is :

                            Choice of Law

  This license is governed by the Laws of France.  Disputes shall be
  settled by the Court of Versailles.

So this means that it is a question of choice of law rather than choice of
venue. The second phrase though would also mention choice of venue right,
altough i have not clear understanding of the exact meaning of the "shall"
verb. Furthermore, it seems that accordying to french law, the choice of venue
is in the domicil of the defendant, at least in principle, which would make
this second point void. Not sure though if there is not a special case to be
applied to the software licence, or the international reach of this case
though.

What does our freeness guidelines have to say about licence clause that are
lacking in legality ? Are they still considered ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther