Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>How do you distinguish a requirement that the user abide by some >>>remote court's process from a requirement that the user pet a cat, >>>volunteer for some personally distasteful organization, etc? Are >>>those DFSG-free requirements? >> At least, these are obvious li

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in >>>licenses, however. >> Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are >> plenty of "bad" licenses which are free. >Only for a strange definition of "free" (such that s

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Henning Makholm writes: > Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Marco d'Itri writes: > >>> Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are >>> plenty of "bad" licenses which are free. > >> Only for a strange definition of "free" (such that some might accuse >> you of

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Marco d'Itri writes: >> Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are >> plenty of "bad" licenses which are free. > Only for a strange definition of "free" (such that some might accuse > you of wanting to put non-free things in

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Marco d'Itri writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in >>licenses, however. > Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are > plenty of "bad" licenses which are free. Only for a strange definition o

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in >licenses, however. Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are plenty of "bad" licenses which are free. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

--- On Mon 09/19, Francesco Poli < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: >>Jenifer, please also consider reading to >>have >>a more general introduction to the topic... PERFECT! Thanks Jenn ___ Join Excite! - http://www.exc

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:34:25 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Jennifer Brown wrote: [...] > > Also please forgive my ignorance but can someone give me a primer on > > the term "free" as it relates to this discussion. Someone once told > > me that free does n

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have >>in licenses, however. I suppose a lawyer would argue what is irrelevant at the moment may be very relevant at a later time...good or ill it is safer to hedge than not, un

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Jennifer Brown wrote: > From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in > >>their licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage. > As I understand it choice of venue cla

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in >>their licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage. As I understand it choice of venue clauses are standard "boiler plate" language in agreements regardless of w

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 10:28:23PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > I fully understand that _may_ and _shall_ are different terms however, > > and I will check on this, but I am pretty sure _may_ in this instance > > is indicating _required._ Again I need to confer with someone to see > > if licen

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Jennifer Brown wrote: > > I am new to this list, I arrived here by being interested in the > Debian Women Project, so please forgive me if I am jumping in where my > opinion is not wanted and if I am too long winded. Hi, and welcome to debian-legal! :)

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit "Jennifer Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In conclusion it seems that just because a venue/forum selection > clause exists does not in-and-of-itself mean that it will hold up in > court. Because there are many other factors (like minimum contacts, > Long-Arm Statutes, foreseeability, supers

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

I think your points make a lot of sense, but you've made them citing case law valid in a few specific jurisdictions. A significant element of the concern that's been expressed has had to do with international law. In other words, while your points can diffuse some of the fear about this issue, I'

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

I am new to this list, I arrived here by being interested in the Debian Women Project, so please forgive me if I am jumping in where my opinion is not wanted and if I am too long winded. I have been trying to follow the recent conversation regarding choice of venue (aka forum selection clause)

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Marco d'Itri writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>How do you distinguish a requirement that the user abide by some >>remote court's process from a requirement that the user pet a cat, >>volunteer for some personally distasteful organization, etc? Are >>those DFSG-free requirements? > At least,

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Marco d'Itri writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to this issue. >>> This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions.

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:31:39PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: >> The difference is that if you have accepted a choice-of-venue license, >> the sociopath can present his local venue with proof that it has >> jurisdisction. That makes a difference, h

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:31:39PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Exactly. It's not a cost because exactly the same thing could happen > > anyway. The same is true of choice of venue clauses - the bringer of the > > suit could claim that their local

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Exactly. It's not a cost because exactly the same thing could happen > anyway. The same is true of choice of venue clauses - the bringer of the > suit could claim that their local venue had jurisdiction over me, even > if this isn't actually the case.

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >How do you distinguish a requirement that the user abide by some >remote court's process from a requirement that the user pet a cat, >volunteer for some personally distasteful organization, etc? Are >those DFSG-free requirements? At least, these are obvious limitation on

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the >>>software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to >>>this issue. >> This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions. >Why would it not be enforce

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett writes: >> But downloading a piece of software from Debian opens me up to the >> possibility of frivolous lawsuits from the copyright holder, something >> that did not occur before. How is that not a cost? > > Why did it not exist before?

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Matthew Garrett writes: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Matthew Garrett writes: >>> We've seen frivolous suits against software alleging patent >>> infringement. Since the only way we can protect our users from these is >>> to stop distributing software, should we do so? >> >> I do

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett writes: >> We've seen frivolous suits against software alleging patent >> infringement. Since the only way we can protect our users from these is >> to stop distributing software, should we do so? > > I do not propose we do anything to sto

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Matthew Garrett writes: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What >> is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection >> he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of the >> copyright

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What > is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection > he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of the > copyright holder to sue users. The cost

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Marco d'Itri writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent? >>> Because it's not o

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Marco d'Itri writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the >>software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to >>this issue. > This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions. Why wo

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the >software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to >this issue. This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights >>>free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the >>>license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent? >> Because it's not obviously a "cost". >I have al

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:16:40PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:13:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > No, actually, my country's government doesn't give a flying fruit basket > > what *another* country says copyright protections should be; if the work is > > being dist

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:00:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:59:25PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > > It's not a cost, it's a risk. There are plenty of other risks that we take > > when we distribute software, that we consider acceptable. What makes this > > one una

Choice-of-venue, was: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:27:35PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > It makes it inconvenient for users and debian-legal, needing to > > know local absurdities of Seaforth or whereever's court procedures. > > By this reasoning, we should reject every package for wh

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:13:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > No, actually, my country's government doesn't give a flying fruit basket > what *another* country says copyright protections should be; if the work is > being distributed in the US, it's US copyright law that applies, because in > th

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:58:37 -0400 David Nusinow wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:53:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote: > > > > > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are > > > free to not install such software

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:33:23PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:27:35PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > It makes it inconvenient for users and debian-legal, needing to > > know local absurdities of Seaforth or whereever's court procedures. > By this reasoning, we should reject

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:59:25PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > Please go back and read the rest of this thread, since your arguments > > were previously made and countered. You argue that since choice of > > venue is a small (or p

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Adam McKenna writes: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 05:12:39PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: >> My own question, when presented with any such cost, is on what basis >> it *is* free, since the DFSG tend to not allow a copyright owner to >> impose costs on users. > > By that reasoning nothing is DFSG free,

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 05:12:39PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > I believe "negligible" includes your viewpoint. I'm not interested in arguing semantics; I believe I made my viewpoint quite clear. > My own question, when presented with any such cost, is on what basis > it *is* free, since the DFS

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Adam McKenna writes: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:56:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: >> From my own experience, I cannot agree with those who think >> the marginal cost is a negligible one. > > It's not negligible. Just not significant to the point where it increases > the risk to an unacceptab

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:51:31PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > I'd simply advocate that we stop distributing material copyrighted by > citizens of Kraplakistan[1]. I don't think we should use the DFSG to try > and change legal systems. As many others on this list have said in the past > as well,

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:56:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > David Nusinow writes: > > I don't feel that this argument was ever effectively countered. There's no > > explicit cost or discrimination such as "send me five dollars" or "no > > black people can use this software". Because of this, t

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:56:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > From my own experience, I cannot agree with those who think > the marginal cost is a negligible one. It's not negligible. Just not significant to the point where it increases the risk to an unacceptable level IMO. --Adam -- To

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

David Nusinow writes: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: >> Adam McKenna writes: >> > The copyright holder can sue users (or even random people off the street, >> > for >> > that matter) whether he put a choice of venue clause in his license or not. >> >> Please go

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:30:47PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:22:21PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the > > software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to > > this issue

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:22:21PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the > software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to > this issue. What if the People's Republic of Kraplakistan made a law that all

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:18:00PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > As you pointed out, choice of venue does not introduce the risk of > being sued: it adds to the expected cost of being sued. How do you > express choice of venue as a risk? Its effect is a slightly higher risk than a license which d

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:10:32PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:03:05PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > You really need to justify it based on the basic freedoms that the DFSG is > > meant to guarantee. Note that not costing money isn't one of those > > freedoms. Nor is p

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Adam McKenna writes: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: >> Please go back and read the rest of this thread, since your arguments >> were previously made and countered. You argue that since choice of >> venue is a small (or putatively reasonable) cost or form of >> di

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:03:05PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > You really need to justify it based on the basic freedoms that the DFSG is > meant to guarantee. Note that not costing money isn't one of those > freedoms. Nor is preventing travel or a prolonged stay. Justifying > non-freeness in ter

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Adam McKenna writes: > > The copyright holder can sue users (or even random people off the street, > > for > > that matter) whether he put a choice of venue clause in his license or not. > > Please go back and read the rest of this

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Please go back and read the rest of this thread, since your arguments > were previously made and countered. You argue that since choice of > venue is a small (or putatively reasonable) cost or form of > discrimination, it can be igno

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Adam McKenna writes: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:36:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: >> Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What >> is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection >> he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:27:35PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > It makes it inconvenient for users and debian-legal, needing to > know local absurdities of Seaforth or whereever's court procedures. By this reasoning, we should reject every package for which someone holds copyright, because it is inconve

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:36:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What > is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection > he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of the > copyright holder to

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As others have said before, this mostly boils down to a convenience factor. > This clause makes the venue convenient for the copyright holder in matters > of enforcement, as opposed to making it convenient for the (suspected) > copyright violator. That's

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Adam McKenna writes: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:05:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: >> Marco d'Itri writes: >> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > >> >>Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution >> >>rights >> >>free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:05:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Marco d'Itri writes: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights > >>free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the > >>license more

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:08:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:05:32PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > Do any of these choice of venue clauses impinge on simple redistribution? > > If so, I'd *definitely* be against those specific ones. If they don't > > relate to the

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Michael Poole wrote: Marco d'Itri writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent? Because

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Friday 16 September 2005 14:26, Marco d'Itri wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution > > rights free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk > > imposed by the license more free than one measured in hundredths of

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Marco d'Itri writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights >>free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the >>license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent? > Because it's not obviously

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights >free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the >license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent? Because it's not obviously a "cost". -- ciao, Marco

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Do any of these choice of venue clauses impinge on simple redistribution? > If so, I'd *definitely* be against those specific ones. Yes. The only thing that allows simple redistribution is the license, and you don't get the license without accepting th

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:05:32PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:44:05AM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote: > > > > Furthermore, we are not imposing anyt

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:44:05AM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote: > > > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free > > > to not install such software if

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:53:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote: > > > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free > > to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely > > protect people from being s

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Copyright licences also shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the > >legal system. > Why not? Do yourself a favour and learn how statutes and agreements differ. > > That has led to things such as any-patent-death clauses > >a

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote: > > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free > > to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely > > protect people from being sued to b

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:02:54 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Just to emphasise this point - *we can't even protect them from > > being sued in an arbitrary country*. > > It is not a matter of protecting users. It is a matter of not > requiring us

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote: > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free > to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely > protect people from being sued to begin with. C'mon David! :-( "We are not imposing anything on ou

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Copyright licences also shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the >legal system. Why not? > That has led to things such as any-patent-death clauses >and supertrademarks. You say this as if it were a bad thing. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I don't like the idea of choice of venue clauses either, but I'm more > uncomfortable with extending the DFSG to deal with things outside the realm > of the basic freedoms we associate with software. There is no extensions going on. It has ALWAYS been

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: >> Yes they do. You have to suffer the choice-of-venue clause in order to >> get the freedoms we expect from software. That is a cost. It is a cost >> I do not want to pay just to get some

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Just to emphasise this point - *we can't even protect them from being > sued in an arbitrary country*. It is not a matter of protecting users. It is a matter of not requiring users to actively drop whichever protection they *already* have. -- Henni

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Thursday 15 September 2005 01:38, Matthew Garrett wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are real-world examples that choice-of-venue clauses could be more > > dangerous than without them. I'm not sure is DFSG can catch these > > challenges, but it certainly should not be r

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Matthew Garrett writes: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Saying that choice of venue is free seems no different than saying >> "You agree to not use this software in connection with the production >> of nuclear energy" or "You agree to not use this software for any >> military purpo

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Saying that choice of venue is free seems no different than saying > "You agree to not use this software in connection with the production > of nuclear energy" or "You agree to not use this software for any > military purpose" is free -- all are waivers o

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

David Nusinow writes: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: >> Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on >> > the freedoms we expect from software. >> >> Yes they do. You have to suffe

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free to > not install such software if they choose. We can't completely protect > people from being sued to begin with. Just to emphasise this point - *we can't even protect them from being

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on > > the freedoms we expect from software. > > Yes they do. You have to suffer the choice-of-venue clause in

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:46:49PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:17:06 -0400 David Nusinow wrote: > > > I think we need to consider the point > > that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause > > may be important for a program author to successfully de

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are real-world examples that choice-of-venue clauses could be more > dangerous than without them. I'm not sure is DFSG can catch these challenges, > but it certainly should not be read as glossary or as a bullet list with do's > and dont's. The

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] They do impose a potential cost on > litigation related to that software, but the DFSG shouldn't be used as a > weapon to change the legal system. [...] Copyright licences also shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the legal system. That has led t

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on > the freedoms we expect from software. Yes they do. You have to suffer the choice-of-venue clause in order to get the freedoms we expect from software. That is a cost. It is a c

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Wednesday 14 September 2005 17:22, David Nusinow wrote: --cut-- > Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on > the freedoms we expect from software. They do impose a potential cost on > litigation related to that software, Please describe what do you think the po

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:56:34AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > ** David Nusinow :: > > If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it. > > If the two sides live in different places, one of them has to > > travel no matter what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:25:38 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, AFAICT. > > > > The DFSG are guidelines to determine whether a *right-holder* gives > > enough permissions to *licensees*, not whether *Debian* gives enou

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >This is, in my opinion, the natural and direct extension of the >explicit language that a license cannot require "royalties or other >fees" to be paid in exchange for the rights described in the In my opinion, this is not natural nor direct. Looks like we are down to opin

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

** David Nusinow :: > If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it. > If the two sides live in different places, one of them has to > travel no matter what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say > that choice of venue clauses aren't Free, then the person bringing > the suit w

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, AFAICT. > > The DFSG are guidelines to determine whether a *right-holder* gives > enough permissions to *licensees*, not whether *Debian* gives enough > permissions to *right-holders*. That doesn't appear to be part

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:23:42 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote: [...] > For what it's worth, I do not believe that DFSG #5 is a sensible > reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free. The sensible > reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free is the following > general principle: > >

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:23:42PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) > > > So finally we are up to the good old "every restriction is a > > discrimination" argument. Even if in the last two years it has become > > popular among some debian-legal@ contributor

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) > So finally we are up to the good old "every restriction is a > discrimination" argument. Even if in the last two years it has become > popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the > project was not looking, I believe that it is bas

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 05:54:34PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want > > (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to > > enter the scene.

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:17:06 -0400 David Nusinow wrote: > I think we need to consider the point > that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause > may be important for a program author to successfully defend their > copyright. If the justification for this is to be grounded in

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:57:04PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 10, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been > > > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any > > > apparent ill effect on

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 06:10:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star > > is > > weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug. > While it is obviously true that the

  1   2   3   >