On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: [...] > Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of > jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. In [...] > Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the > ability to use or modify a work, it appears be a fee, and as such > fails DFSG 1.
That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines "fee" as "something involving the transfer of money". If it isn't, then the GPL is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right ("the right not to distribute any source") which you might otherwise have, which could be considered to be a fee. Hey, if we're going to accept leaps of logic, I can do one too. > Finally, by placing works under licenses with such clauses into > non-free, we advise people that they should be examining the license > more closely before deciding whether or not they should (or can) use > the software. Everyone who really cares about anything should do that anyway. -- Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]