On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote: > If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed *before* > declaring the license non-free. [...]
I think choice of venue might not follow DFSG 1 because the costs of even a trivial court case in some venues are considerable and that liability is a royalty which can be collected at a future time. Does anyone know the venue in this question? More obviously, exposing all of our mirror operators and other distributors to being sued by Adobe in California is a practical problem with the licence. Given what Adobe did to Sklyarov, I'd prefer extreme caution when handling any lawyerbomb from them. A request from them to distribute might help. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
