Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote: So, if i want to be protected, i have to give away my copyright ? Unless you want to do the protecting yourself, yes, since it's pretty difficult for the FSF to file a suit against someone without being the copyright holder. Although, they have been known to help copyright holders in negotiating with violators of their licenses. In any case, it's not like you can't maintain your right to sublicense your work if you do the copyright assignment to the FSF properly. [From what I understand, the default language of the assignment contains such a clause.] Don Armstrong -- Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going If in their place we find a thing more precious growing A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing -- Frederick Rükert _Wisdom of the Brahmans_ [Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:37:05PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote: Protection against users not respecting the licence and reusing GPLed code in proprietary software for example ? That's what organizations like the FSF are for. If you're concerned about such a thing, assign your copyrights to the FSF, and they will be more than glad to protect your rights (and other users rights!) So, if i want to be protected, i have to give away my copyright ? I still wonder what this means for europe, where assigning copyright seems to be illegal or something. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On 2004-08-19 08:06:27 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still wonder what this means for europe, where assigning copyright seems to be illegal or something. Measures with similar effect seem to be possible in other European jurisdictions. See the FSFE's work on the FLA. http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/fla/fla.en.html -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
Sven Luther wrote: Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin myself in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and powerfull have the right to get their licence respected, isn't it ? Are you not aware that SCO is being sued in Germany and Australia? Despite being a US-based company, SCO has a physical presence (i.e. personal jurisdiction) in every country where it has an office, and arguably in every location where it either sells its software[0] Similarly, did you follow the Microsoft vs. Lindo*s issue? Microsoft sued in US courts, failed to get an injunction, then venue shopped for a court that would give them the ruling they wanted, ending up in the Netherlands. If Lindo*s could have argued that venue was improper because both companies are US companies, don't you think they would have? Without a choice of venue clause, you can sue in 1) Your home court, 2) The offender's home court, or 3) The court where the offense took place. You can be sued in 1) Your home court, 2) the plaintiff's home court, or 3) the court where the offense took place. With a choice of venue clause, you can sue in 1) Your chosen venue, 2) the offender's home court (if you claim that the license has been broken, then you can sue them wherever you want, subject to the court's approval[1]), or 3) the court where the offense took place (again, subject to that court's approval[1]). You can be sued in 1) Your chosen venue, 2) the plaintiff's home court (they can simply not refer to the license's COV clause in their filing[2]) 3) the court where the offense took place (they can simply not refer to the license's COV clause in their filing[2]) --Joe [0] Some courts have taken the position that a website that is accessible from that jurisdiction is sufficient. I think this is a terrible precedent. [1] The offender may try to move the case to your preferred venue. [2] It might be a simple matter for you to defend yourself against this type of action, simply by sending a letter with the COV clause to the court. However, that may still require competant legal council in that venue.
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:41:57AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin myself in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and powerfull have the right to get their licence respected, isn't it ? Are you not aware that SCO is being sued in Germany and Australia? Despite being a US-based company, SCO has a physical presence (i.e. personal jurisdiction) in every country where it has an office, and arguably in every location where it either sells its software[0] Well, did you heard the case where, i think it was california, decided that it could sue people all over the world ? Similarly, did you follow the Microsoft vs. Lindo*s issue? Microsoft sued in US courts, failed to get an injunction, then venue shopped for a court that would give them the ruling they wanted, ending up in the Netherlands. If Lindo*s could have argued that venue was improper because both companies are US companies, don't you think they would have? Sure, but all of those are big companies, i am just a lone developer, i wouldn't even know where to look if SCO or Microsoft where to steal my code and be irrespectuous of the licence. And since i contributed some (very small) amount of linux source code, at least i could be suing SCO for not respecting the GPL, could i not, like IBM is doing ? Now if i could go to tribunal here and fill the suing, this would be well more costly, _and_ i would have much more faith in the impartiality of the judge, given the bad example of money-dominated courts you see in the US. But i don't really care, this clause has been dropped from the ocaml licence, so it doesn't affect me at all. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
Sven Luther writes: On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:41:57AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote: Similarly, did you follow the Microsoft vs. Lindo*s issue? Microsoft sued in US courts, failed to get an injunction, then venue shopped for a court that would give them the ruling they wanted, ending up in the Netherlands. If Lindo*s could have argued that venue was improper because both companies are US companies, don't you think they would have? Sure, but all of those are big companies, i am just a lone developer, i wouldn't even know where to look if SCO or Microsoft where to steal my code and be irrespectuous of the licence. And since i contributed some (very small) amount of linux source code, at least i could be suing SCO for not respecting the GPL, could i not, like IBM is doing ? Now if i could go to tribunal here and fill the suing, this would be well more costly, _and_ i would have much more faith in the impartiality of the judge, given the bad example of money-dominated courts you see in the US. How, exactly, would that help you in the case of Linux, where there is no choice of venue clause? If you want contact information for SCO's French office, it is easy to find on their web site[1]. You can sue them there if you really think you have a case. Free software is about empowering users and developers, not about making lawsuits easy. If you want that, you have plenty of proprietary licenses to choose from. [1]- http://www.sco.com/worldwide/fr.html took me about 30 seconds to find, most of it waiting on a slow network. Michael Poole
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:35:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:41:57AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin myself in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and powerfull have the right to get their licence respected, isn't it ? Are you not aware that SCO is being sued in Germany and Australia? Despite being a US-based company, SCO has a physical presence (i.e. personal jurisdiction) in every country where it has an office, and arguably in every location where it either sells its software[0] Well, did you heard the case where, i think it was california, decided that it could sue people all over the world ? You seem to get a different version of the news than I do; the case I've heard of involved a Debian developer successfully appealing to the California Supreme Court, and overturning this jurisdictional claim. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:38:26PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: I saw a short note by Andrew Suffield regarding Choice of Venue in Free Software licenses, which was pointed to by the Debian weekly news. Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting Free Software authors from frivolous lawsuits /against them /in venues where it is difficult or impossible to defend themselves, but where they could still be damaged. In general such damage would be due to reciprocal treaties or the fact that they might someday wish to visit a nation where a judgement exists against them. Note that a disclaimer of warranties is not by itself sufficient to protect the author. No one license term is. A court may decide not to honor a disclaimer of warranty, while still honoring choice of venue and sending the case elsewhere. It was not my intent in designing the DFSG to rule out choice-of-venue. I do not recall anyone else connected with the DFSG making comments against it during the discussion leading up to acceptance of the DFSG. The closest DFSG term to this issue is the one about discrimination against persons or groups. A choice of venue of the actual jurusdiction in which the copyright holder is resident would not in my opinion be discriminatory. A choice designed to increase difficulty might be. I don't see that the DFSG language as it currently exists reads against all choice-of-venue clauses. Nor do I see that additional language to add that feature to the DFSG is necessary. Thanks Bruce. Altough upstream already agreed to waive this clause, i believe much as you do above, and that debian-legal has been slanted much in defending the rights of the user of free software, at the detriment of the upstream author. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:01:59AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: In fairness he was responding to the Debian tabloid press, which traditionally takes an event, removes all semblence of useful information from it, and posts an inaccurate remark along with a URL to something inappropriate. So his primary error was in believing what you read in the tabloids. (In this specific instance, it looks like one of my offhand remarks swatting down a non-argument, under the assumption that -legal subscribers understand the context and other people have sense enough to ask - right alongside four other posts with detailed explanations. Gotta love tabloids). If that's the case, then Bruce should learn to check his sources and discover the arguments; and once he's done so, to present his arguments as arguments, and not decrees. I wouldn't have grunted about it, except that it's happened before, in precisely the same way: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/11/msg00061.html -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:44:09AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:01:59AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: In fairness he was responding to the Debian tabloid press, which traditionally takes an event, removes all semblence of useful information from it, and posts an inaccurate remark along with a URL to something inappropriate. So his primary error was in believing what you read in the tabloids. (In this specific instance, it looks like one of my offhand remarks swatting down a non-argument, under the assumption that -legal subscribers understand the context and other people have sense enough to ask - right alongside four other posts with detailed explanations. Gotta love tabloids). If that's the case, then Bruce should learn to check his sources and discover the arguments; and once he's done so, to present his arguments as arguments, and not decrees. I wouldn't have grunted about it, except that it's happened before, in precisely the same way: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/11/msg00061.html Well, he provided historical insight, and his own interpretation. Mostly everybody here provides his own interpretation, with only minimal attempt to argument it, so it should not be so different. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote: i believe much as you do above, and that debian-legal has been slanted much in defending the rights of the user of free software, at the detriment of the upstream author. Even though this is a tangent point, Free Software involves defending the rights of a user of Free Software. If the upstream author wants to protect and preserve their rights, they are interested in proprietary software, not Free Software. That's not to say that we shouldn't be concious of limiting the liability of the upstream author... but an argument based solely on preserving upstream rights at the expense of user rights is dead before it hits the door. Don Armstrong -- Clint why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common? infinity It... Doesn't? Clint good point http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:07:17AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote: i believe much as you do above, and that debian-legal has been slanted much in defending the rights of the user of free software, at the detriment of the upstream author. Even though this is a tangent point, Free Software involves defending the rights of a user of Free Software. If the upstream author wants to protect and preserve their rights, they are interested in proprietary software, not Free Software. Protection against users not respecting the licence and reusing GPLed code in proprietary software for example ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Even though this is a tangent point, Free Software involves defending the rights of a user of Free Software. If the upstream author wants to protect and preserve their rights, they are interested in proprietary software, not Free Software. Protection against users not respecting the licence and reusing GPLed code in proprietary software for example ? Enforcing copyright is entirely the job of the law and the courts, not Debian. If what you were trying to suggest is that the purpose of the GPL is to protect and preserve the original author's rights, then you're missing the point of the GPL. The primary purpose of the GPL is to protect the user: to ensure that he always receives the right and the ability to modify and redistribute the software. The author's rights are also protected, but that's because the author is also a user; just as other user's rights are protected and preserved by the GPL, so are his own. Protecting the rights of the original author is fine, until it infringes upon the rights of the user; at that point, the tradeoff needs to be carefully examined. Don't claim that I endorse your use of this software protects the author[1], and that's fine--it doesn't restrict users' rights, or put users in danger. If you use this software, you must agree to never sue me for any reason protects the author, and it's not acceptable at all, since it infringes upon the users' rights. Any litigation related to this software will take place in New York may protect the author, but can also be used by the copyright holders to harass users in the same way the author is trying to protect himself against. It's not at all clear that this is acceptable. If it's significant enough for the author to want protection, then surely putting every user (which includes other free software developers, reusing code or forking, who live in other parts of the world) at the same risk is a dubious trade. [1] kind of; you can't do that anyway, so it's usually a no-op -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 05:26:22PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Even though this is a tangent point, Free Software involves defending the rights of a user of Free Software. If the upstream author wants to protect and preserve their rights, they are interested in proprietary software, not Free Software. Protection against users not respecting the licence and reusing GPLed code in proprietary software for example ? Enforcing copyright is entirely the job of the law and the courts, not Debian. If what you were trying to suggest is that the purpose of the GPL is to protect and preserve the original author's rights, then you're missing the point of the GPL. The primary purpose of the GPL is to protect the user: to ensure that he always receives the right and the ability to modify and redistribute the software. The author's rights are also protected, but that's because the author is also a user; just as other user's rights are protected and preserved by the GPL, so are his own. Protecting the rights of the original author is fine, until it infringes upon the rights of the user; at that point, the tradeoff needs to be carefully examined. Don't claim that I endorse your use of this software protects the author[1], and that's fine--it doesn't restrict users' rights, or put users in danger. If you use this software, you must agree to never sue me for any reason protects the author, and it's not acceptable at all, since it infringes upon the users' rights. Any litigation related to this software will take place in New York may protect the author, but can also be used by the copyright holders to harass users in the same way the author is trying to protect himself against. It's not at all clear that this is acceptable. If it's significant enough for the author to want protection, then surely putting every user (which includes other free software developers, reusing code or forking, who live in other parts of the world) at the same risk is a dubious trade. Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin myself in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and powerfull have the right to get their licence respected, isn't it ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote: Protection against users not respecting the licence and reusing GPLed code in proprietary software for example ? That's what organizations like the FSF are for. If you're concerned about such a thing, assign your copyrights to the FSF, and they will be more than glad to protect your rights (and other users rights!) In some cases, they'll help you protect your rights even if you haven't assigned copyright to them. Don Armstrong -- There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more. -- Woody Allen http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:21:47AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin myself in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and powerfull have the right to get their licence respected, isn't it ? And with a choice of venue clause, you file litigation in your home country against John Hacker for similar reasons, and he can't defend himself for the same cost reasons. This clearly means that only the rich and powerful have the right to defend themselves against accusations of copyright infringement, doesn't it? This goes both ways. I believe the choice of venue should remain the default: up to the relevant laws to decide, which is far more likely to be fair and equitable to both parties than a one-sided choice of venue clause, chosen by the original author. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
Bruce Perens walking in on a debate and attempting to hand down Word from Above without actually addressing any of the arguments that have been presented, as if three hundred posts of debate can be settled beyond dispute in just one ... -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
Bruce Perens writes: Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting Free Software authors from frivolous lawsuits /against them /in venues where it is difficult or impossible to defend themselves, but where they could still be damaged. In general such damage would be due to reciprocal treaties or the fact that they might someday wish to visit a nation where a judgement exists against them. Which nations have courts that ignore personal jurisdiction to such an extent? Are those nations known to respect choice of venue clauses in copyright-based licenses? It seems arbitrary to accept choice-of-venue clauses based on the (so far unsubstantiated) assumption that they are less likely to be ignored by courts than disclaimers of warranty. Michael Poole
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
* Michael Poole ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040818 00:25]: Bruce Perens writes: Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting Free Software authors from frivolous lawsuits /against them /in venues where it is difficult or impossible to defend themselves, but where they could still be damaged. In general such damage would be due to reciprocal treaties or the fact that they might someday wish to visit a nation where a judgement exists against them. Which nations have courts that ignore personal jurisdiction to such an extent? Are those nations known to respect choice of venue clauses in copyright-based licenses? What do you mean by personal jurisdiction? E.g. for a lawsuite in the USA it is sufficient if the person who claims to be damaged lives there. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
Andreas Barth writes: * Michael Poole ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040818 00:25]: Bruce Perens writes: Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting Free Software authors from frivolous lawsuits /against them /in venues where it is difficult or impossible to defend themselves, but where they could still be damaged. In general such damage would be due to reciprocal treaties or the fact that they might someday wish to visit a nation where a judgement exists against them. Which nations have courts that ignore personal jurisdiction to such an extent? Are those nations known to respect choice of venue clauses in copyright-based licenses? What do you mean by personal jurisdiction? E.g. for a lawsuite in the USA it is sufficient if the person who claims to be damaged lives there. See Google for analysis of the concept; for example, http://www.cyberspacelaw.org/kesan/kesan1.html and http://www.ssbb.com/what.html. The US Supreme Court has thrown out cases brought against someone in a state where they neither live nor do business because the original court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Lower courts have also enforced the minimum contacts test mentioned by those pages. Michael Poole
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:38:26PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting Free Software authors from frivolous lawsuits /against them /in venues where it is difficult or impossible to defend themselves, but where they could still be damaged. I am not aware of any such jurisdictions which would permit this in the absence of a choice-of-venue clause, and which would also forbid it in the presence of a choice-of-venue clause. All that I'm aware of either fuck you over both ways, or neither way. The civilised part of the world is generally the latter. None of which is relevant anyway; almost everything that's not DFSG-free is useful. The closest DFSG term to this issue is the one about discrimination against persons or groups. No, it's #1, free distribution. Choice-of-venue clauses incur actual monetary cost to the end-user at the whim of the copyright holder. It would be approximately equivalent, from a DFSG perspective, if the license said On request of the copyright holder, you must pay them $100. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 05:17:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: Bruce Perens walking in on a debate and attempting to hand down Word from Above without actually addressing any of the arguments that have been presented, as if three hundred posts of debate can be settled beyond dispute in just one ... In fairness he was responding to the Debian tabloid press, which traditionally takes an event, removes all semblence of useful information from it, and posts an inaccurate remark along with a URL to something inappropriate. So his primary error was in believing what you read in the tabloids. (In this specific instance, it looks like one of my offhand remarks swatting down a non-argument, under the assumption that -legal subscribers understand the context and other people have sense enough to ask - right alongside four other posts with detailed explanations. Gotta love tabloids). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
