Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
>>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
>> You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the
>> licensor gets carte blanche to harrass licensees with frivolous
>> lawsuits. That is not reality.
> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
> fivolous lawsuits.
No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of
jurisdiction, no harassment results.
>> Do you think that the GPL and the BSD licenses are both pointless?
> I think that a copyleft license is utterly pointless if there's no way
> for the licensor to be able to afford to sue infringers.
According to your argument, the GPL and BSD license must be pointless,
because they don't contain any obnoxious choice-of-venue clauses.
> But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software
> license *does* have something to do with software freedom.
Not anything I can read in the DFSG.
--
Henning Makholm "Skidt med din brud
når der står et par nymfer
i tyl og trikot i den lysegrønne skov!"
