On Saturday 10 September 2005 18:54, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you > > want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane > > cases' to enter the scene... all over the world. > > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any > apparent ill effect on users.
Not true. Many licenses that failed to comply with DFSG [0] has not been accepted. Many packages entered the Debian archive by incident has been removed. Past experience shows that licenses having choice of venue has been avoided [0][1]. > And do not forget that there are many places (e.g. California) which > allow big companies (e.g. the MPAA or Adobe) to sue there people from > other states or countries (e.g. people accused to violate the DMCA) > without even the need for a license... If you look at the big picture, > choice of venue clauses are not much important. Simple. This is where choice of venue enters the scene. If you think it is 'not much important' then argue with the license creator to remove it as well. Since it is obvious you are not a lawyer I doubt you know that such words make things important in lawsuits and suddenly 'very much unlikely' and 'very much important' becomes 'Yes'. [0] http://people.debian.org/~mjr/licences.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00533.html Note: I wont reply to all your redundant mails, you can find the answers in past discussions. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
