NAZAR MOHAMMED MAFAZ's Member Invite
Hey there, You still have an open invite from NAZAR MOHAMMED MAFAZ to join the Scour.com Search community! Scour is a Social Search engine made better by a community of users just like you. Why use Scour? 1. Search Google, Yahoo and Bing on one page. 2. Get real-time search results from Digg and Twitter 3. Take advantage of the community Votes and Comments on the results. 4. Participate by voting and commenting helping make the results more relevant. 5. Discover new and popular websites. Come and be part of the largest Social Search community! Get Started at http://scour.com/invite/MAFAZNAZAR/r/ and enjoy a better search experience by searching socially. See you soon, www.scour.com This message was sent to you as a friend referral to join scour.com, please feel free to review our http://scour.com/privacy page and our http://scour.com/communityguidelines/antispam page. If you prefer not to receive invitations from ANY scour members, please click here - http://www.scour.com/unsub/e/ZGViaWFuLWxlZ2FsQGxpc3RzLmRlYmlhbi5vcmc= -OR- Write to us at: Scour, Inc., 15303 Ventura Blvd. Suite 860, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403, USA. campaignid: scour201001040002 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Sean Kellogg writes: > On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote: > > [Please also avoid Cc:ing me, since I am subscribed to debian-legal...] > > Noted... though, my mail client handles such things. You appear to be using KMail. You should use the “reply to list” feature, which AFAICT is bound to the ‘L’ key. (This will also do the right thing on any standards-compliant mailing list, so you don't need to treat Debian's mailing lists specially.) -- \ “Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential | `\ things in rationality.” —Bertrand Russell | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Sean Kellogg writes: > On Monday 04 January 2010 09:15:20 am Michael Poole wrote: >> Sean Kellogg writes: >> >> > You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses >> > are somehow "great"... just saying that aren't prohibited by the >> > DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want, only what you >> > need :) >> >> The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by >> discriminating against people who live outside the venue. Is there some >> tenable argument that these license actually don't discriminate against >> these users? > > The discrimination clause is so very overblown on this list... it > seems it is used to defend against any license clause these > days. Heaven help us if the DFSG #10 didn't explicitly say the GPL was > covered. Argument by flat assertion tends not to change many minds. What problems would the GPL have under the reading of "discrimination" that I suggested? Rather than just saying it's an undesirable reading of DFSG#5, can you propose a better reading or explain why it is so undesirable? > I don't consider choice-of-venue to be discrimination, it simple > pre-determines a question that /must/ be answered before the a > possible law suit can begin. That the decision is made to the > disadvantage of the user isn't discrimination, it just /is/. But let's > consider this clause for just a moment. That question /must/ be answered, indeed -- but what business does a software license have in dictating how it should be answered? We do not allow software licenses to dictate the side of road on which users drive. (Having to drive on the left side of the road does not discriminate against some users, it just /is/!) Step back and look at your argument. You argue that the license *does* make that determination, and that in doing so it *does* disadvantage some users, but that it does not matter if it does. Your reason for saying that it does not matter seems to hinge on it being potentially expensive to answer the question. The goal of the DFSG is not to minimize overall cost -- it is to increase users' software freedoms, and the analysis should be couched in those terms rather than in overall cost avoidance. (I can tell you almost for certain that it is cheaper for a user to use the default venue rules, and litigate that issue, than to have enforced foreign venue. In my single data point -- admittedly not revolving around copyright or a software license -- dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction would have run several thousand dollars and a full civil Federal trial would have cost about twenty times as much. If that case were in my local jurisdiction, I could have gone pro se.) > 1) You download the code in some EU country and promptly violate the terms of > the license (though, how you would actually violate them in a way they would > pursue is really beyond me). > > 2) AMD brings suit against you in some US district court. > > 3) You decide the case is stupid and refuse to attend, as is your legal right. > > 4) A default judgment is entered against you for failure to show up for $1 > million!!! > > 5) AMD can't do squat at this point. Unless the court that issued the > judgment has control over assets you own, they can't actually do anything to > you. So now AMD has to go and sue you at your home anyway. > > But in those situations where the user does have assets under jurisdiction of > the court in question, they have previously chosen to have some ties to that > jurisdiction. And /now/ it really is a question of which venue, because both > sides of interests to protect. As I stated before, we can either have venue > pre-decided, or we can have a round of expensive legal briefs. Under the Hague Convention on Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters[1], many countries (including the US, most or all of the EU, and others) have agreed to enforce foreign judgments in their own courts. While I have heard of one case where UK courts declined to enforce a US default judgment against a UK resident, it does not appear that default judgments are inherently excepted from the Convention. As I am sure you are aware, it is easier for a plaintiff to enforce an existing judgment than to win a case ab initio. [1]- http://www.legallanguage.com/resources/treaties/hague/1971-february-1st-convention-1/ Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Monday 04 January 2010 11:33:15 am Walter Landry wrote: > Sean Kellogg wrote: > > On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote: > >> [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long > >> lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives > >> and to reply to...] > > > > The archive looks fine [1], > > The official archive does not > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00030.html > > > and in my experience more mail clients prefer to wrap on their own > > than my client doing it for them. Yes, this is a particular problem > > with Outlook... and yes, that's what most of the recipients of my > > email use. > > Many people on this list prefer for you to line wrap. Most people > on this list do not use Outlook, since it is not packaged for Debian. Wow... what a truly brilliant discovery! Using kmail in the only way that doesn't cause massive unreadability issues on a huge number of mail clients in the world and has zero problems on the major web email clients or Thunderbird or kmail itself breaks the debian official archive? Yet works fine on an unofficial archive!? Truth be told, I've been looking for a good reason to jump off this list for years (I think I've been a subscriber under one address or another for like nine years now). I'll spare you the diatribe, you know the song and dance already. Ciao, Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@probonogeek.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 03:07:23PM -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote: > This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus soon, and > it is getting us away from the original thread topic. > How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is > both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the > cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one. This has already been done. The license doesn't permit modification, so it fails the DFSG. However, it's been pointed out that the header file may not be copyrightable *at all* because it only contains interface definitions. > After all, if one clause is DFSG-incompatible, the file is DFSG- > incompatible. That's enough to take action (remove the file, contact > upstream to remove the file, contact AMD to change header license, move > package to non-free, etc); it's irrelevant whether the other clauses are > compatible or not. Well, if one of the possible courses of action is to ask AMD to change the license, I recommend having an exhaustive list of DFSG problems with the license ready to hand, lest you find that they try to solve this by editing their license to address *only* the issue you've mentioned. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:16:43 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote: > On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long > > lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives > > and to reply to...] > > The archive looks fine [1] [...] > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg40546.html [...] Walter Landry has already pointed out that this is not the official archive... [...] > > Also, my goal is not to "inject controversy". > > I just express my opinion, in the sincere hope that it can help in > > enhancing Debian. When decision-makers disagree with me, I still hope > > I can persuade them to change their minds. Whenever I am *aware* that > > my opinion is not in line with the official position of the Debian > > Project, I try to explicitly point this out. > > I hear what you're saying, and I sympathize with your plight. Changing > minds in Debian is a hurculean task. But the dude asking the question > wasn't a Debian decision-maker, he was just some guy asking about the > DFSG-ness of a license as applied to a particular piece of software. I > my opinion, the mailing list should provide him as direct and > politics-free answer as possible. That's what I was trying to provide, but I cannot quote the official position when I do not know there's one. For the choice of venue issue, I depicted the situation I was aware of (long discussions, no clear consensus, but many people against such clauses, including me!). -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpChwITsT4ik.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Sean Kellogg wrote: > On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote: >> [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long >> lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives >> and to reply to...] > > The archive looks fine [1], The official archive does not http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00030.html > and in my experience more mail clients prefer to wrap on their own > than my client doing it for them. Yes, this is a particular problem > with Outlook... and yes, that's what most of the recipients of my > email use. Many people on this list prefer for you to line wrap. Most people on this list do not use Outlook, since it is not packaged for Debian. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Marco d'Itri wrote: > nicolas.alva...@gmail.com wrote: > >>How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is >>both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the >>cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one. > > As explained, the license does not really matter since function > definitions usually are not subject to copyright. [function definitions are the actual code, so I'll assume you meant declarations] When was that said? I couldn't find anyone in this thread saying declarations aren't subject to copyright. -- Nicolas (I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc me on replies; it makes me get one message on my newsreader and another on email.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Nicolas Alvarez writes: > MJ Ray wrote: >> I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being >> acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable, >> thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance. > > This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus soon, and > it is getting us away from the original thread topic. > > How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is > both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the > cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one. Reserving the choice-of-venue issue for other discussion, this is near the start of the license (reflowed for ease of reading): In no event shall anyone redistributing or accessing or using this material commence or participate in any arbitration or legal action relating to this material against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. or any copyright holders or contributors. The foregoing shall survive any expiration or termination of this license or any agreement or access or use related to this material. According to this, downloading and reading the file to evaluate whether it infringes copyright would render one unable to file suit if one decides that it does infringe copyright. If I recall correctly, similar anti-lawsuit provisions have been deemed DFSG-noncompliant in the past. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
nicolas.alva...@gmail.com wrote: >How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is >both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the >cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one. As explained, the license does not really matter since function definitions usually are not subject to copyright. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
mdpo...@troilus.org wrote: >The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by >discriminating against people who live outside the venue. Is there some The usual argument of the DFSG revisionists is that everything is a restriction or a discrimination, so it's not really helpful. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
MJ Ray wrote: > I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being > acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable, > thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance. This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus soon, and it is getting us away from the original thread topic. How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one. After all, if one clause is DFSG-incompatible, the file is DFSG- incompatible. That's enough to take action (remove the file, contact upstream to remove the file, contact AMD to change header license, move package to non-free, etc); it's irrelevant whether the other clauses are compatible or not. -- Nicolas (I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc me on replies; it makes me get one message on my newsreader and another on email.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Monday 04 January 2010 09:15:20 am Michael Poole wrote: > Sean Kellogg writes: > > > You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses > > are somehow "great"... just saying that aren't prohibited by the > > DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want, only what you > > need :) > > The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by > discriminating against people who live outside the venue. Is there some > tenable argument that these license actually don't discriminate against > these users? The discrimination clause is so very overblown on this list... it seems it is used to defend against any license clause these days. Heaven help us if the DFSG #10 didn't explicitly say the GPL was covered. I don't consider choice-of-venue to be discrimination, it simple pre-determines a question that /must/ be answered before the a possible law suit can begin. That the decision is made to the disadvantage of the user isn't discrimination, it just /is/. But let's consider this clause for just a moment. 1) You download the code in some EU country and promptly violate the terms of the license (though, how you would actually violate them in a way they would pursue is really beyond me). 2) AMD brings suit against you in some US district court. 3) You decide the case is stupid and refuse to attend, as is your legal right. 4) A default judgment is entered against you for failure to show up for $1 million!!! 5) AMD can't do squat at this point. Unless the court that issued the judgment has control over assets you own, they can't actually do anything to you. So now AMD has to go and sue you at your home anyway. But in those situations where the user does have assets under jurisdiction of the court in question, they have previously chosen to have some ties to that jurisdiction. And /now/ it really is a question of which venue, because both sides of interests to protect. As I stated before, we can either have venue pre-decided, or we can have a round of expensive legal briefs. > (People have been known to overlook details in the past. The fact that > some works currently in Debian have choice-of-venue license clauses does > not in itself make those clauses DFSG-compliant.) Except that this issue has been debated at length many times and has never, to my knowledge, resulted in a package being excluded. For my money, I don't think it's a case of overlooking. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@probonogeek.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:28:32 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote: > > > [dropping pkg-boinc-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org as I don't think they > > care about this...] > > [Yes, I agree.] > [Please also avoid Cc:ing me, since I am subscribed to debian-legal...] Noted... though, my mail client handles such things. > [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long > lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives > and to reply to...] The archive looks fine [1], and in my experience more mail clients prefer to wrap on their own than my client doing it for them. Yes, this is a particular problem with Outlook... and yes, that's what most of the recipients of my email use. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg40546.html > > On Saturday 02 January 2010 10:38:52 am Francesco Poli wrote: > [...] > > > I re-iterate: how can policy or practice be refined or discussed, if > > > *any* disagreement is banned from Debian mailing lists? > > > > > > Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the > > > DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I > > > provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. > > > I don't remember any clear decision by the Debian Project on this > > > matter, otherwise I would have cited it (as I often do with the GR on > > > the GFDL, for instance). > > > > The problem with this line of argument is that it sounds very similar > > to the climate skeptics / intelligent design crowd. The approach seems > > to be, "continue to inject controversy even when there is community > > consensus, in hopes of giving the appearance of true division." > > I don't think this comparison is fair. > IMHO, there's much more uncertainty in DFSG interpretation and license > clause effect prediction, than in validation of scientific theories. > > Also, my goal is not to "inject controversy". > I just express my opinion, in the sincere hope that it can help in > enhancing Debian. When decision-makers disagree with me, I still hope > I can persuade them to change their minds. Whenever I am *aware* that > my opinion is not in line with the official position of the Debian > Project, I try to explicitly point this out. I hear what you're saying, and I sympathize with your plight. Changing minds in Debian is a hurculean task. But the dude asking the question wasn't a Debian decision-maker, he was just some guy asking about the DFSG-ness of a license as applied to a particular piece of software. I my opinion, the mailing list should provide him as direct and politics-free answer as possible. At least, that's what I would want to receive if I had asked the question. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@probonogeek.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Sean Kellogg writes: > You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses > are somehow "great"... just saying that aren't prohibited by the > DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want, only what you > need :) The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by discriminating against people who live outside the venue. Is there some tenable argument that these license actually don't discriminate against these users? (People have been known to overlook details in the past. The fact that some works currently in Debian have choice-of-venue license clauses does not in itself make those clauses DFSG-compliant.) Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Monday 04 January 2010 06:36:26 am Michael Poole wrote: > Anthony W. Youngman writes: > > > In message <20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray > > writes > >>I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being > >>acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable, > >>thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance. > > > > Actually, I believe choice-of-venue is unenforceable in our > > jurisdiction :-) > > That's convenient for you (assuming it's true). I live in Virginia, > which has enacted a law called UCITA that gives almost unlimited scope > to shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses; but even without that, US courts > generally uphold choice-of-venue clauses in software licenses. I hope > that those situated similarly to me count for something when evaluating > DFSG compliance -- just going through discovery in one lawsuit venued on > the far side of the country was more than enough for me. (Setting aside > the cost of retaining a lawyer in a jurisdiction with slightly different > laws than I'm familiar with, the three-hour time zone difference made it > a pain to coordinate things without disrupting my working schedule. > IMO, software users don't deserve to have far-away lawsuits against them > made easier.) Choice of venue clauses are uber complicated in the United States, and UCITA certainly doesn't help. Having said that, if a suit is to be brought it is going to be brought somewhere. With the GPL, which of course has no choice of venue clause, the litigants get to look forward to a series of back-and-forth briefs about the venue before they even get to the merits of the suit... which is just that much more expense. To say nothing of international cases and choice-of-law issues :( -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@probonogeek.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Monday 04 January 2010 04:31:53 am MJ Ray wrote: > Sean Kellogg wrote: > > > Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the > > > DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I > > > provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. [...] > > > > The problem with this line of argument is that it sounds very > > similar to the climate skeptics / intelligent design crowd. > > So objecting to agreeing to travel to Texas from Europe (or be judged > in one's absence which I believe means you almost always lose) is very > similar to a religious argument to you? > > Wow, it seems an utterly practical matter to me. You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses are somehow "great"... just saying that aren't prohibited by the DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want, only what you need :) > > The > > approach seems to be, "continue to inject controversy even when > > there is community consensus, in hopes of giving the appearance of > > true division." Sure, it's their right to believe as they wish, and > > to speak as they wish, but to the community that has moved on it > > sure is awfully annoying and dilatory. The FUD strategy has a way of > > getting of people's nerves awfully quickly :) > > I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being > acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable, > thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance. I can't speak to the makeup of the d-l list, or the DD membership... but I'm /fairly/ certain that there are packages in main right now with choice-of-venue clauses that have been approved by the FTP masters. Sounds like a settled matter to me, unless someone wants to bring the matter to a vote of the DD membership. But, in my observation, the d-l hardline position tends to not carry the day in such votes. > Returning to the intelligent design analugy, it's like the difference > between outlawing promotion of it completely and stopping it being > taught as the One True Way. Who said anything about outlawing? I didn't ask for Francesco to be banned from the mailing list... goodness, he does more license analysis than anyone else, and generally he's quite good at it. He's welcome to say whatever he likes, just as I'm welcome to say he's wrong :) -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@probonogeek.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Anthony W. Youngman writes: > In message <20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray > writes >>I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being >>acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable, >>thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance. > > Actually, I believe choice-of-venue is unenforceable in our > jurisdiction :-) That's convenient for you (assuming it's true). I live in Virginia, which has enacted a law called UCITA that gives almost unlimited scope to shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses; but even without that, US courts generally uphold choice-of-venue clauses in software licenses. I hope that those situated similarly to me count for something when evaluating DFSG compliance -- just going through discovery in one lawsuit venued on the far side of the country was more than enough for me. (Setting aside the cost of retaining a lawyer in a jurisdiction with slightly different laws than I'm familiar with, the three-hour time zone difference made it a pain to coordinate things without disrupting my working schedule. IMO, software users don't deserve to have far-away lawsuits against them made easier.) Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
In message <20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray writes I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable, thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance. Actually, I believe choice-of-venue is unenforceable in our jurisdiction :-) Under UK law, in a person-vs-corporation situation, the person has choice of venue. END OF. Quite how that would pan out if it was a US corp, I don't know. Certainly I think, if I demanded change of venue, it would instantly make any US judgement unenforceable on me (or MJ if he demanded change of venue). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Sean Kellogg wrote: > > Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the > > DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I > > provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. [...] > > The problem with this line of argument is that it sounds very > similar to the climate skeptics / intelligent design crowd. So objecting to agreeing to travel to Texas from Europe (or be judged in one's absence which I believe means you almost always lose) is very similar to a religious argument to you? Wow, it seems an utterly practical matter to me. > The > approach seems to be, "continue to inject controversy even when > there is community consensus, in hopes of giving the appearance of > true division." Sure, it's their right to believe as they wish, and > to speak as they wish, but to the community that has moved on it > sure is awfully annoying and dilatory. The FUD strategy has a way of > getting of people's nerves awfully quickly :) I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable, thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance. Returning to the intelligent design analugy, it's like the difference between outlawing promotion of it completely and stopping it being taught as the One True Way. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
