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

[Josselin Mouette]

Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> > > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
> > Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case?
> It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> it's up to you explaining why.

Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: net-tools maintenance status

[Olaf van der Spek]

On 8/11/05, Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/11/05, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > > Just one more question: what happened to my original emails?
> >
> > I read them. Most likely I saved the wrong one for further processing. Thats
> > why it is a good idea to copy the bug report. Sorry for your double work.
> 
> Thanks, I'll keep them in mind.
> When can the patch be expected in unstable?

Eh, bump, please?

Re: a desperate request for licence metadata

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:13:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > I wrote:
>> >> In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright
>> >> owner.
>> >
>> > Thomas Bushnell writes:
>> >> Can you be specific with references please?
>> >
>> > 
>> 
>> Well, one more anti-freedom law from Europe.  Shame on them, but I
>> should not be surprised.  :(
>
> It's only big and organized lending (i.e., public libraries etc.) which
> is restricted. Nobody will sue me for lending out a book to a friend...

I'm not sure that really makes me feel better.  Are public libraries
the sort of things we should be legally discouraging??


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> | The Covered Code is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in
> | 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer
> | software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such
> | terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept.  1995). Consistent with 48
> | C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (June
> | 1995), all U.S. Government End Users acquire Covered Code with only
> | those rights set forth herein.
>
> I have managed to find out what "C.F.R." means and to locate the text
> of the referenced sections, completely without becoming wiser about
> what that text is supposed to achieve (and whether a private party
> *can* at all stipulate a different application of the U.S. federal
> administration's _internal_ purchasing regulations than would
> otherwise be used) ...

CFR means the Code of Federal Regulations, which are implementing
administrative rules (with the force of law) for statutes.  

In this case, the point is only about US Government End Users, a
specific category of users, and the provisions of US law which require
special copyright thingies to be said like this.  The private party
*can* make this stipulation, but only because the internal purchasing
regulations *grant* that right to private parties.

Also, CFR is not just internal purchasing regulations; the CFR has the
force of law about just about everything the regulatory state is
concerned with.  

You can read the text at http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[George Danchev]

On Friday 09 September 2005 01:41, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> > > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
> >
> > Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case?
>
> It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> it's up to you explaining why.

here they are:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00037.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00038.html

of course left with no well-grounded substantiations or explanations it is 
other way around [1]:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=2169&tstart=0

I also think this breaches the Debian Social Contract#4, since you expose your 
users on baseless charges of license violation for no good reasons all over 
the world. Breaks "We will place their interests first in our priorities."

These two make it dangerous and even worse than plain nonfree clear-worded 
license IMHO.

[1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star is 
weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: snmpkit stuck in unstable ?

[A Mennucc]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:12:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Looks like its entire chain is ready, so now you need a "hint".  Ask 
> debian-release to do this:

the page on excuses was speaking of an "hint"...
what is it ?
choice 1) a plain english email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
choice 2) a procedure involving gpg signing and email to an obscure address
 using a set of keywords nobody ever documented properly

1 was my hope, 2 was my Debian-experience-induced-fear

a.

-- 
Andrea Mennucc
 "Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmysp acebar.ohwh atthef"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: snmpkit stuck in unstable ?

[Andreas Barth]

* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050909 10:01]:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:12:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Looks like its entire chain is ready, so now you need a "hint".  Ask 
> > debian-release to do this:

> the page on excuses was speaking of an "hint"...
> what is it ?
> choice 1) a plain english email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> choice 2) a procedure involving gpg signing and email to an obscure address
>  using a set of keywords nobody ever documented properly
> 
> 1 was my hope, 2 was my Debian-experience-induced-fear

1) is the answer. This leads to something like
easy snmpkit/0.9-11 libprinterconf/0.5-7
in my hints file on ftp-master (only release team members can directly
set hints; we do it however also if we notice by ourself). In your case,
the result is already there on ftp-master
   snmpkit | 0.9-11 |   testing | source
   snmpkit | 0.9-11 |  unstable | source
and will be available on the mirrors after tonights cron.daily run.


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
> seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.

I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
meaningfull to discriminate against it?

-- 
Henning Makholm   "Larry wants to replicate all the time ... ah, no,
   all I meant was that he likes to have a bang everywhere."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#326429: ITP: webcheck -- website link and structure checker

[Arthur de Jong]

On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 00:47 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Arthur de Jong]
> > I'm not sure if I need some statement on the copyrights on the
> > generated html files. The css file that is just copied has a BSD
> > license.
> 
> Generally, output from a program is not considered to be copyrighted.
> The templates from which it is built could be copyrighted, and if
> significant bits of a template are copied in verbatim, you may wish to
> copy in a license statement from the template too.

The templates are embedded in the python code (e.g. write('')) (except for the mentioned css file). The python code is GPL.
Most of the content (links, titles, other gathered information) is from
the crawled website.

> > The old package provides, conflicts with and replaces linbot (the
> > name of webcheck a long time ago). Should I keep that or just drop
> > it? (linbot was in slink, potato and woody but neither linbot or
> > webcheck were in sarge)
> 
> Completely your call.  You do not need to support upgrades from woody
> or prior, but you can if you wish.  Three lines in debian/control
> which you'll never need to change is a pretty cheap price, but it *is*
> untidy if you want a minimalist control file.

I think I'll keep those lines for a while then (they're not in the way
for now).

> > The old package has a configuration file in /etc/webcheck and the
> > new package no longer provides that. What would be the best way to
> > get rid of it? (policy 10.7.3 has a note about removing conffiles
> > but I'm not sure it's relevant) Should I delete it on upgrade?
> 
> Is the package configured in some other way, or have you dropped
> support for any site-wide configuration?  If you still have a
> configuration mechanism, it's best if you can migrate /etc/webcheck to
> the new scheme automatically, then delete it, at upgrade time.  If
> not, you can just delete it.

The new package does not use a configuration file at all any more (the
config.php file is still there but it is not really meant to be edited
any more and is not in /etc). I don't think I want to keep a site-wide
configfile. Maybe I'll support specifying a configfile from the
command-line one day.

I'm going for completely removing the /etc/webcheck directory on
upgrades. Anyone think there should be a debconf question about this at
install time (e.g. test if /etc/webcheck exists and ask the user to
remove it)?

> > Btw, I'm packaging this as a native Debian package because I just
> > want to release one version and have one source tarball.
> 
> Not recommended - you'll have to release a whole new "upstream
> version" any time you fix a trivial Debian bug, or even just to
> recompile against a newer sid library.  Providing backports or forks
> (for etch after etch is frozen) will require new upstream version
> numbers, which will confuse your non-Debian audience ("wait, what's
> the current release?  Upstream 3.1.15 and 3.1.15~etch1 were released
> at the same time, but 3.0.4.etch2 was just added to the debian ftp
> site")

I think this would avoid confusion since every Debian version is also a
released version. If a release changes just Debian packaging (unlikely
at the moment since it is in development) that will be documented in the
NEWS file. Since this is a python package with architecture: all the
risk of recompiles are minimal. I'm not too worried about the version
numbers of backports or forks because priority is extra (not likely to
be affected by major freeze problems) but adding a .etch# or .sarge#
suffix shouldn't cause too much confusion.

> And there's the bandwidth issue - you and the build daemons have to
> transfer the whole source tarball every time you make a trivial change
> to debian/*.

The current tarball is pretty small (45k plus maybe 5k for a debian
directory) and since the architecture is all (no buildds) I don't think
we'll be having a lot of bandwidth issues.

Thanks for you comments!

-- 
-- arthur - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://people.debian.org/~adejong --


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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

[Marco d'Itri]

On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> > it's up to you explaining why.
> Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
> seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
some restrictions present in the CDDL.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#326429: Info received (was Bug#326429: ITP: webcheck -- website link and structure checker)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s)
and to other interested parties to accompany the original report.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 arthur de jong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as before.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:46:04AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> > > it's up to you explaining why.
> > Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
> > seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
> I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
> some restrictions present in the CDDL.

Marco, 

Remember the DFSG are guidelines, and it is ultimately to the responsability
of the ftp-masters to take a decision, based on the DFSG, sure, but also on
other consideration, as well as potential (legal) risk for our infrastructure,
mirror network, and daughter-distribs and end-users.

But then, it seems it is clear that the CDDL discriminates against any group
of persons not living in the juridiction (juridiction is the same as
choice-of-law, right ?) of the author suing them, or at least it seems clear
that this is the argumentation used here.

Now, this applies to choice of venue, not sure about choice of law,maybe too,
but to a lesser degree, since it is possible that the defendant will have more
trouble finding a lawyer familiar with the laws of a foreign juridiction.

Now, i wonder what law and venue are applicable if no such clause is present ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: net-tools maintenance status

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Eh, bump, please?

http://net-tools.berlios.de

Gruss
Bernd


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

subscribe

[Ernestas]

subscribe


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: net-tools maintenance status

[Olaf van der Spek]

On 9/9/05, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > Eh, bump, please?
> 
> http://net-tools.berlios.de

> Planned: new release 1.65 which contains all the debian patches. Use of some 
> netdev features.

Great, but when?

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

[Michael Poole]

Henning Makholm writes:

> Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
>> seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
>
> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
> discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
> meaningfull to discriminate against it?

Not everyone belongs to the group: In all cases to date (and likely
all cases in the future), some people would naturally be subject to
the court's jurisdiction.  As an example, the QPL discriminates
against everyone who does not live conveniently close to Olso.

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm writes:

>> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
>> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
>> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
>> discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
>> meaningfull to discriminate against it?

> Not everyone belongs to the group: In all cases to date (and likely
> all cases in the future), some people would naturally be subject to
> the court's jurisdiction.

Unless they have for some reason already decided conclusively that
they will never leave that jurisdiction and settle elsewhere, they are
still inconvenienced.

> As an example, the QPL discriminates against everyone who does not
> live conveniently close to Olso.

And against people who do live close to Oslo but may later contemplate
to move elsewhere.

-- 
Henning Makholm"Nej, hvor er vi altså heldige! Længe
  leve vor Buxgører Sansibar Bastelvel!"

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

[Paul TBBle Hampson]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:56:50PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Henning Makholm writes:

>>> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
>>> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
>>> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
>>> discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
>>> meaningfull to discriminate against it?

>> Not everyone belongs to the group: In all cases to date (and likely
>> all cases in the future), some people would naturally be subject to
>> the court's jurisdiction.

> Unless they have for some reason already decided conclusively that
> they will never leave that jurisdiction and settle elsewhere, they are
> still inconvenienced.

>> As an example, the QPL discriminates against everyone who does not
>> live conveniently close to Olso.

> And against people who do live close to Oslo but may later contemplate
> to move elsewhere.

That raises an interesting situatoin. What if the author moves? The author
would have to travel back to Oslo to participate in a law suit related to that
version of the license.

-- 
---
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?"
-- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean"

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/
---


pgpcD0dFb8C1V.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Paul TBBle Hampson]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 9. MISCELLANEOUS.

> Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
> shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License.

Can a license exclude application of laws? Maybe there's a jurisdiction which
has such a law on the books, which _can_ be opted out of, but I doubt such
exists, as it would defeat the purpose of having that law in the first place.

-- 
---
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?"
-- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean"

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/
---


pgpAYCNwRUddM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[John Hasler]

Henning Makholm writes:
> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at
> the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" can be
> meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be discriminated
> against.

Why do you think that a copyright owner needs a choice of venue clause in
order to file suit against you in his home jurisdiction?
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

info tourisme Mailing List Confirmation

[info tourisme]

This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your
email list subscription for the following list: 

info tourisme

To confirm this subscription, please follow the below URL:



(Click the URL above or, copy and paste the URL into your browser)

Doing so will subscribe you to this list. 

---

The following is the description given for this list: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---

This double opt-in confirmation email was sent to protect the privacy
of the owner of this email address. Double opt-in confirmation 
guarantees that only the owner of an email address can subscribe themselves
to this mailing list.

Furthermore, the following privacy policy is associated with this list: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please read and understand this privacy policy. Other mechanisms may 
have been enacted to subscribe email addresses to this list, such as
physical guestbook registrations, verbal agreements, etc.

If you did not asked to be subscribed to this particular list, please
do not visit the confirmation URL above. The confirmation for 
subscription will not go through and no other action on your part 
will be needed.

To contact the owner of this email list, please use the below address: 



The following physical address is associated with this mailing list: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

- [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 Powered by Dada Mail 2.9.2 
 http://www.auberge-alpineinn.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi?f=smtm


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at
> > the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" can be
> > meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be discriminated
> > against.
> 
> Why do you think that a copyright owner needs a choice of venue clause in
> order to file suit against you in his home jurisdiction?

I had the impression that international law mandates that you can sue someone
only where he lives, is established, or makes business, at least this seems to
be the case in France. But then maybe this was only for contract law, or
something, not sure, as IANAL.

This is indeed a good question, and one which needs to be solved to solve this
issue.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Humberto Massa Guimarães]

> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
> discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
> meaningfull to discriminate against it?

Try "people who do not have enough money to travel to $VENUE to defend
themselves from a frivolous lawsuit -- one that they will lose by defaulting
their court appearance". I think Debian agrees that "poor people" in general
is a group that is protected by DFSG#5.

--
HTH,
Massa


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[George Danchev]

On Friday 09 September 2005 15:46, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Henning Makholm writes:
> > > I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> > > at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> > > can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
> > > discriminated against.
> >
> > Why do you think that a copyright owner needs a choice of venue clause in
> > order to file suit against you in his home jurisdiction?
>
> I had the impression that international law mandates that you can sue
> someone only where he lives, is established, or makes business, at least
> this seems to be the case in France. But then maybe this was only for
> contract law, or something, not sure, as IANAL.

I think it is called 'International Private Law'. In case of no clause of 
choice-of-vanue and choice-of-low were stipulated, these two are determinated 
by the means of [1]. I also think that the parties can dispute where the 
process be held, e.g. the selected forum / jury /court could be varacious for 
both sites, not giving pre-advantages to any of them, but IANAL also.

In case you accept a contract or license with a choice-of-vanue and 
choice-of-low it is obvious you need to obey with the given ones. You guess 
who can has the pre-advantages in that case - licensor or licensee.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_international_law

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Welcome to info tourisme

[info tourisme]

The subscription of the email address: 

debian-devel@lists.debian.org

To the mailing list: 

info tourisme

is all set. Thanks for subscribing! 

Date of this subscription: Fri Sep  9 09:25:23 2005

Please save this email message for future reference. 

---

You may automatically unsubscribe from this list at any time by 
visiting the following URL:



If the above URL is inoperable, make sure that you have copied the 
entire address. Some mail readers will wrap a long URL and thus break
this automatic unsubscribe mechanism. 

You may also change your subscription by visiting this list's main screen: 



If you're still having trouble, please contact the list owner at: 



The following physical address is associated with this mailing list: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

- 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

New message

[chewlocka]

Title: E-mail message content





















Well you look up now and we WON 6 GAMES IN A ROW! Who does it better than us? And now here we are with our best play of the week here for you to get an easy win! With as HOT as we have been how can you let yourself stay away from this? We have an easy baseball winner for you! DO NOT MISS OUT! 
 
 
www.lockandwin.com
 
 
DISCLAIMER:
This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail message immediately.































--- Sent by UNREGISTERED VERSION of Atomic Mail Sender.Please register to remove this message.

info tourisme Mailing List Confirmation

[info tourisme]

This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your
email *removal* for the following list: 

info tourisme

To confirm this unsubscription, please follow the below URL:



(Click the URL above or, copy and paste the URL into your browser)

Doing so will *remove* you to this list. 

---

The following is the description given for this list: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---

This double opt-out confirmation email was sent to protect the privacy
of the owner of this email address. 

Furthermore, the following privacy policy is associated with this list: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please read and understand this privacy policy. 

If you did not asked to be removed from this particular list, please
do not visit the confirmation URL above. The confirmation for 
removal will not go through and no other action on your part 
will be needed.

To contact the owner of this email list, please use the below address: 



The following physical address is associated with this mailing list: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

info tourisme Mailing List Confirmation

[info tourisme]

This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your
email *removal* for the following list: 

info tourisme

To confirm this unsubscription, please follow the below URL:



(Click the URL above or, copy and paste the URL into your browser)

Doing so will *remove* you to this list. 

---

The following is the description given for this list: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---

This double opt-out confirmation email was sent to protect the privacy
of the owner of this email address. 

Furthermore, the following privacy policy is associated with this list: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please read and understand this privacy policy. 

If you did not asked to be removed from this particular list, please
do not visit the confirmation URL above. The confirmation for 
removal will not go through and no other action on your part 
will be needed.

To contact the owner of this email list, please use the below address: 



The following physical address is associated with this mailing list: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Matthew Garrett]

Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
>> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
>> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
>> discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
>> meaningfull to discriminate against it?
> 
> Try "people who do not have enough money to travel to $VENUE to defend
> themselves from a frivolous lawsuit -- one that they will lose by defaulting
> their court appearance". I think Debian agrees that "poor people" in general
> is a group that is protected by DFSG#5.

Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
them?

The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true
regardless of license conditions.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

info tourisme Unsubscription

[info tourisme]

The removal of the email address:

debian-devel@lists.debian.org

>From the mailing list: 

info tourisme 

is all set.

Date of this removal: Fri Sep  9 10:26:04 2005

Please save this email message for future reference.

---

You may automatically subscribe from this list at any time by 
visiting the following URL:



If the above URL is inoperable, make sure that you have copied the 
entire address. Some mail readers will wrap a long URL and thus break
this automatic unsubscribe mechanism. 

You may also change your subscription by visiting this list's main screen: 



If you're still having trouble, please contact the list owner at: 



The following physical address is associated with this mailing list: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

- 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Humberto Massa Guimarães]

> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
> them?

YES. Please. The DFSG #5 says you should not discriminate the licensee;
the licensor is OK. Debian does, in an active basis, discriminate against
licensors: if they refuse to release source code; if they license their
documentation under the GDFL, MPL (?), old QPL, etc, etc, etc.

Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some
of their rights to assure the rights of the "commons".

> The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true
> regardless of license conditions.

That's exactly why we (should) discriminate in favour of poor people.

--
HTH,
Massa


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[George Danchev]

On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> >> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> >> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
> >> discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
> >> meaningfull to discriminate against it?
> >
> > Try "people who do not have enough money to travel to $VENUE to defend
> > themselves from a frivolous lawsuit -- one that they will lose by
> > defaulting their court appearance". I think Debian agrees that "poor
> > people" in general is a group that is protected by DFSG#5.
>
> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
> them?

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... all over the world. 

> The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true
> regardless of license conditions.

I'll agree here ! Then why leave easy targets to lawsuit sharks ?

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#254248: What are the differences between cdebootstrap and debootstrap?

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Rogério Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I was a bit surprised to see a bug like 254248 being tagged as won't
> fix.

There are other strange wontfix tags for cdebootstrap, including a
handful of quite reasonably looking translation updates.

Significantly, all of those wontfix tags were added without *any*
comment or *any* attempt of an explanation of why the maintainer
opposes their being fixed.

I think this counts as abuse of the wontfix tag. Setting the tag is
*never* a substitute for explaining (or referencing an explanation of)
why one thinks the problem should not be solved.

In cases where a bug report is so obviously bogus that no explanation
for ignoring it is needed at all, it should be closed instead of
having a wontfix tag silently slapped on. But this is evidently not
the case for the wontfix-tagged bugs on cdebootstrap.

-- 
Henning Makholm"Jeg køber intet af Sulla, og selv om uordenen griber
planmæssigt om sig, så er vi endnu ikke nået dertil hvor
   ordentlige mennesker kan tillade sig at stjæle slaver fra
 hinanden. Så er det ligegyldigt, hvor stærke, politiske modstandere vi er."

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

[Matthew Garrett]

Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some
> of their rights to assure the rights of the "commons".

Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless. In order to
maintain the freedoms that copyleft-style licenses offer us, the
licensor needs to be able to engage in lawsuits.

>> The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true
>> regardless of license conditions.
> 
> That's exactly why we (should) discriminate in favour of poor people.

And, hence, discriminate against rich ones?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Matthew Garrett]

George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
>> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
>> them?
> 
> 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... all over the world. 

But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for
me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to
deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer.
Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me
than being sued here.
 
>> The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true
>> regardless of license conditions.
> 
> I'll agree here ! Then why leave easy targets to lawsuit sharks ?

How do we protect against that currently?
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some
>> of their rights to assure the rights of the "commons".

> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.

You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the
licensor gets carte blanche to harrass licensees with frivolous
lawsuits. That is not reality.

Do you think that the GPL and the BSD licenses are both pointless?

> And, hence, discriminate against rich ones?

We *should* discriminate against software whose authors wants the
right to order all users and distributors to travel around the globe
on their whim. Such harassment has nothing at all to do with software
freedom.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the
   compiler being used finds a legitimate interpretation
   which is different from that which the user had in mind."

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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily.

The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that you agree
*in advance* to waive your usual protections against arbitrary
lawsuits in exotic courts.

> The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it
> potentially increases the cost for me.

By orders of magnitude.

> Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to
> deal with a court case.

It may be that you do not have any concept of "home court" within the
UK. That does not mean that the rest of the world's Debian users
should be expected to suffer from that fault.

>> I'll agree here ! Then why leave easy targets to lawsuit sharks ?

> How do we protect against that currently?

We protect against leaving easy target by considering software
non-free if its licence demands that you position yourself as an
easier target that you would be without the license.

-- 
Henning Makholm"De kan rejse hid og did i verden nok så flot
 Og er helt fortrolig med alverdens militær"

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

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:41:58PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> > I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
> > some restrictions present in the CDDL.
> 
> It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable
> license is free, then it's up to you to explain why it follows
> the DFSG and convince ftpmasters to admit the packages as a
> general rule. If you can't even convince this liberal crowd, ow!

Naturally, you could try to get the package in on the sly, like apparently
happeend with star :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Yorick Cool]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:35:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew> The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true
Matthew> regardless of license conditions.

Although I don' dispute this assertion per se, the problem at hand is that 
*geography*
necessarily discriminates in favor of people who are closer to such or such 
jurisdiction.
Such a discrimination will necessarily occur. I do not see the difference in 
the degree of
discrimination whether the determination of the group discriminated against is 
left to
international private law or a license.

The only argument I can see against choice of venue clauses is that if you 
distribute your
software on a worldwide basis, then you'll have to expect to enforce it's 
license on a worldwide
basis or to not enforce it in certain regions. 

Of course, that line of reasoning might have a chilling effect on small
companies/individual developers. 

I don't really think there's a perfect solution as regarding discrimination on 
this issue.

-- 
Yorick Cool
Chercheur au CRID
Rempart de la Vierge, 5
B-5000 Namur
Tel: + 32 (0)81 72 47 62 /+32 (0)81 51 37 75
Fax: + 32 (0)81 72 52 02


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[George Danchev]

On Friday 09 September 2005 18:41, MJ Ray wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> > I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
> > some restrictions present in the CDDL.
>
> It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable
> license is free, then it's up to you to explain why it follows
> the DFSG and convince ftpmasters to admit the packages as a
> general rule. If you can't even convince this liberal crowd, ow!

Also you may take into account that if an author of cddl'ed software want to 
see it into free software linux/hurd/bsd distributions then the software 
could be easily double licensed, e.g. CDDL/GPL, CDDL/BSD, CDDL/Artistic, and 
so on. If it can not be double licensed with any proven free software license 
for any weird reason, then I'll suspect that can of worms will start showing 
sooner or later. In today's crazy days I'll go for a conservative approach.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[George Danchev]

On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
> >> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
> >> them?
> >
> > 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... all over the world.
>
> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
> that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for
> me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to
> deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer.
> Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me
> than being sued here.

The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find 
some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange.

> >> The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true
> >> regardless of license conditions.
> >
> > I'll agree here ! Then why leave easy targets to lawsuit sharks ?
>
> How do we protect against that currently?

What changes the picture is that you just add new possibilities to be possibly 
attacked and as we all know sco wont be the last, it was not the smartest 
either... 

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Matthew Garrett]

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
>> fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs.
> 
> This seems remarkably similar to the argument "The user has carte
> blanche to exercise DFSG freedoms; the only thing that a use fee
> changes are the costs."  Does that mean that DFSG#1 allows fees for
> all users of software?

A use fee imposes a cost where no cost would otherwise exist. For a big
evil corporation, the difference in cost between suing me in the UK and
suing me in the US is sufficiently small that they're unlikely to worry
greatly about the amount. Even without a choice of venue clause, they
can launch a lawsuit against me and make my life miserable. They pay
slightly more, I pay slightly less.
 
> At least in the US, it is fairly cheap (<$10k, predominantly in lawyer
> fees) to have a lawsuit with improper venue dismissed, and those costs
> can often be awarded to the defendant.  Even if costs are not awarded,
> the US's Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (to wit, FRCP 41(d)) can
> have the judge order the plaintiff to pay for previously dismissed
> actions before further hearing any sufficiently similar action.

So, in fact, it might be *cheaper* for me to have the case handled in
the US than in some other jurisdictions?

(Out of interest, are there any jurisdictions where the defendant is
required to be present in a civil case, or is legal representation
acceptable everywhere?)

>> But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software
>> license *does* have something to do with software freedom. There are
>> always tradeoffs.
> 
> Would you prefer an OSL-style license based on a contract where the
> distributor(s) explicitly agree to provide source code to the
> licensee, handing enforcement ability to all licensees?

Sounds quite reasonable from an ideological point of view, but I can see
it presenting certain practical difficulties.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[George Danchev]

On Friday 09 September 2005 21:10, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett writes:
> >> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
> >> fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs.
> >
> > This seems remarkably similar to the argument "The user has carte
> > blanche to exercise DFSG freedoms; the only thing that a use fee
> > changes are the costs."  Does that mean that DFSG#1 allows fees for
> > all users of software?
>
> A use fee imposes a cost where no cost would otherwise exist. For a big
> evil corporation, the difference in cost between suing me in the UK and
> suing me in the US is sufficiently small that they're unlikely to worry
> greatly about the amount. Even without a choice of venue clause, they
> can launch a lawsuit against me and make my life miserable. They pay
> slightly more, I pay slightly less.

They can not make your life miserable with baseless lawsuits in any sane 
country, in fact they perfectly know you may strike em back for lesion of 
your good reputation and so on. But they can make your life miserable with 
baseless lawsuits in any insane country. Go figure what venues are sane and 
what are not. Do you see the light ;)

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Michael Poole]

Matthew Garrett writes:

> A use fee imposes a cost where no cost would otherwise exist. For a big
> evil corporation, the difference in cost between suing me in the UK and
> suing me in the US is sufficiently small that they're unlikely to worry
> greatly about the amount. Even without a choice of venue clause, they
> can launch a lawsuit against me and make my life miserable. They pay
> slightly more, I pay slightly less.

The relative costs to a well-bankrolled plaintiff are not relevant to
the DFSG.  What is relevant is the relative cost or discrimination to
the user, who will generally be the defendant in these cases.

>> At least in the US, it is fairly cheap (<$10k, predominantly in lawyer
>> fees) to have a lawsuit with improper venue dismissed, and those costs
>> can often be awarded to the defendant.  Even if costs are not awarded,
>> the US's Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (to wit, FRCP 41(d)) can
>> have the judge order the plaintiff to pay for previously dismissed
>> actions before further hearing any sufficiently similar action.
>
> So, in fact, it might be *cheaper* for me to have the case handled in
> the US than in some other jurisdictions?

It may be cheaper to have a US-venued case dismissed *if venue is
obviously improper*.  Where the form is correct (or correctable
through further filings) and there is a reasonable dispute over the
facts, US courts are infamously expensive and prone to cost inflation.

> (Out of interest, are there any jurisdictions where the defendant is
> required to be present in a civil case, or is legal representation
> acceptable everywhere?)

US courts generally require the parties to be physically present at a
few points: trial is the most universal, but (from my own experience)
there may be a pre-trial conference where a judge orders all the
parties to attend in person.  It will also be cheaper for a party to
fly to the court's venue to be deposed than to fly their lawyer to
where they live, and no US-filed case goes to trial without
depositions of all the parties.

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[George Danchev]

On Friday 09 September 2005 21:57, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
> >> not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only
> >> ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it
> >> restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers.
> >> In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical
> >> for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. The fact that it
> >> has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, any
> >> more than the fact that decss can be used to facilitate DVD piracy makes
> >> it evil.
> >
> > The diff is that you can not use GPL in baseless lawsuits against users
> > and/or developers. Can you ? Do you risk your baseless adventure will be
> > severely striken back in any sane countries ? 
>
> If I'm willing to lie (and I'd have to be to be filing a baseless
> lawsuit), then yes, I can use the GPL in baseless lawsuits against users
> and/or developers.

You can sue random people for random reasons (in some funny cases you will be 
simply ruled out of court), so it is obviously not a GPL flow. But in all 
cases it depends on the venue authorities. In case of their sanity: at best 
you will damage your business, at worst you will start live on charity. This 
has already been tested in recent lawsuit exercises.

It is unpredictable what will happend in case of jurisdiction or court 
insanity and that possible danger should be avoided.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: announcing the beginning of security support for testing

[Patrick Wiseman]

On 9/9/05, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 Security support for testingThe Debian testing security team is pleased to announce the beginning of
full security support for Debian's testing distribution.
This is great news, and thank you!

[...]

We also invite you to add the following lines to your/etc/apt/sources.list file, and run "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade"
to make the security updates available.deb http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing etch/security-updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing etch/security-updates main contrib non-free
Could I replace 'etch' with 'testing' or should I replace 'testing' with 'etch' elsewhere in my sources.list file?

Patrick

Re: announcing the beginning of security support for testing

[Olaf van der Spek]

On 9/9/05, Patrick Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing
> etch/security-updates main contrib non-free 
> > deb-src
> http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing
> etch/security-updates main contrib non-free
> 
> Could I replace 'etch' with 'testing' or should I replace 'testing' with
> 'etch' elsewhere in my sources.list file?

testing instead of etch works
It depends on what you wish to do when testing and etch aren't equal
anymore. Do you want to follow testing or etch then?

Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via mysql isn't working anymore.

[Thomas Becker]

Package: general
Severity: important

The error message is:

Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM unable to 
dlopen(/lib/security/pam_mysql.so)
Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM [dlerror: /lib/tls/libm.so.6: 
symbol _rtld_global_ro, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file ld-linux.so.2 
with link time reference]
Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM adding faulty module: 
/lib/security/pam_mysql.so
Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: DEBUG: auth_pam: pam_authenticate 
failed: Module is unknown
Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: do_auth : auth failure: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [service=smtp] [realm=x.de] [mech=pam] [reason=PAM 
auth error]

Seems like the update of libc6 was causing the problem?! 

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.7
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via mysql isn't working anymore.

[Steve Langasek]

reassign 327417 glibc
thanks

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 01:28:16AM +0200, Thomas Becker wrote:
> Package: general
> Severity: important

> The error message is:

> Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM unable to 
> dlopen(/lib/security/pam_mysql.so)
> Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM [dlerror: /lib/tls/libm.so.6: 
> symbol _rtld_global_ro, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file 
> ld-linux.so.2 with link time reference]
> Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM adding faulty module: 
> /lib/security/pam_mysql.so
> Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: DEBUG: auth_pam: pam_authenticate 
> failed: Module is unknown
> Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: do_auth : auth failure: 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [service=smtp] [realm=x.de] [mech=pam] [reason=PAM 
> auth error]

> Seems like the update of libc6 was causing the problem?! 

That sounds to me like saslauthd needs to be added to the list of
services to restart on upgrade.  Can you run /etc/init.d/saslauthd
restart and confirm that it corrects the error?

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation

[Benjamin Seidenberg]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


  Package name: gaim-slashexec
  Version : x.y.z
  Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter Lawler 
Daniel 'datallah' Atallah  
  URL : http://guifications.sourceforge.net/SlashExec/
  License : GPL
  Description : adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim 
conversation

 SlashExec is a Gaim Plugin that lets you execute commands from within a
 Gaim conversation. SlashExec provides a limited command-line
 interpreter for this purpose. SlashExec can also either display the
 command's output locally or send the output as a message in the current
 conversation.

 

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12.2
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation

[Benjamin Seidenberg]

owner 327425 !
thanks

Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:


Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


 Package name: gaim-slashexec
 Version : x.y.z
 Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter Lawler 
   Daniel 'datallah' Atallah  
 URL : http://guifications.sourceforge.net/SlashExec/

 License : GPL
 Description : adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim 
conversation

SlashExec is a Gaim Plugin that lets you execute commands from within a
Gaim conversation. SlashExec provides a limited command-line
interpreter for this purpose. SlashExec can also either display the
command's output locally or send the output as a message in the current
conversation.



-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
 APT prefers unstable
 APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12.2
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)


 



Version: 1.0

Sorry, missed a field. Also used wrong email (annoyed at reportbug for 
not honoring

$DEBEMAIL)

Cheers,
Benjamin



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation

[Roberto C. Sanchez]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:47:34PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
>   Package name: gaim-slashexec
>   Version : x.y.z
  ^

>   Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   Peter Lawler 
> Daniel 'datallah' Atallah  
>   URL : http://guifications.sourceforge.net/SlashExec/
>   License : GPL
>   Description : adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim 
> conversation
> 
>  SlashExec is a Gaim Plugin that lets you execute commands from within a
>  Gaim conversation. SlashExec provides a limited command-line
>  interpreter for this purpose. SlashExec can also either display the
>  command's output locally or send the output as a message in the current
>  conversation.
> 

Seems like it would be neat to have.

-Roberto
-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto


pgpkCYCLFB310.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:24:20PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> Sorry, missed a field. Also used wrong email (annoyed at reportbug for 
> not honoring
> $DEBEMAIL)

Err, it does?

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation

[Benjamin Seidenberg]

Hamish Moffatt wrote:


On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:24:20PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
 

Sorry, missed a field. Also used wrong email (annoyed at reportbug for 
not honoring

$DEBEMAIL)
   



Err, it does?

Hamish
 

See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=324341 . It now 
won't unless the config file is set, which mine was because I came from 
a version before the fix.


Benjamin


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Matthew Garrett]

George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
>> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
>> that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for
>> me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to
>> deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer.
>> Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me
>> than being sued here.
> 
> The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find 
> some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange.

That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
impression that it was generally accepted.
 
>> How do we protect against that currently?
> 
> What changes the picture is that you just add new possibilities to be 
> possibly 
> attacked and as we all know sco wont be the last, it was not the smartest 
> either... 

So the presence of a choice of venue clause is a quantitative
difference rather than a qualitative one?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Matthew Garrett]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
> 
> You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the
> licensor gets carte blanche to harrass licensees with frivolous
> lawsuits. That is not reality.

The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs.
 
> Do you think that the GPL and the BSD licenses are both pointless?

I think that a copyleft license is utterly pointless if there's no way
for the licensor to be able to afford to sue infringers. You might as
well just have released the code into the public domain.

>> And, hence, discriminate against rich ones?
> 
> We *should* discriminate against software whose authors wants the
> right to order all users and distributors to travel around the globe
> on their whim. Such harassment has nothing at all to do with software
> freedom.

But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software
license *does* have something to do with software freedom. There are
always tradeoffs.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
> >> that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for
> >> me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to
> >> deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer.
> >> Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me
> >> than being sued here.
> > 
> > The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may 
> > find 
> > some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange.
> 
> That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
> impression that it was generally accepted.

I wonder, let's say you are going to be judged in some random US court, even
if it is with German laws, you still would fall into common US-practice legal
or something such ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
>>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.

>> You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the
>> licensor gets carte blanche to harrass licensees with frivolous
>> lawsuits. That is not reality.

> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
> fivolous lawsuits.

No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of
jurisdiction, no harassment results.

>> Do you think that the GPL and the BSD licenses are both pointless?

> I think that a copyleft license is utterly pointless if there's no way
> for the licensor to be able to afford to sue infringers.

According to your argument, the GPL and BSD license must be pointless,
because they don't contain any obnoxious choice-of-venue clauses.

> But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software
> license *does* have something to do with software freedom.

Not anything I can read in the DFSG.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Skidt med din brud
  når der står et par nymfer
 i tyl og trikot i den lysegrønne skov!"

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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I wonder, let's say you are going to be judged in some random US court, even
> if it is with German laws, you still would fall into common US-practice legal
> or something such ? 

Court procedures always go by the local law of the forum.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "And here we could talk about the Plato's Cave thing for a
while---the Veg-O-Matic of metaphors---it slices! it dices!"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[George Danchev]

On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
> >> that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for
> >> me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to
> >> deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer.
> >> Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me
> >> than being sued here.
> >
> > The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may
> > find some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange.
>
> That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
> impression that it was generally accepted.

I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held. 
Can you prove somehow that all of them around the globe are sane and wont be 
used for speculations ... 


I have currently no args against choice-of-law, but doesn't mean it is sane 
and safe. I just wonder why COV and COL are not present in proven licenses 
like GPL, BSD, Artistic, and why are they needed from now on.

> >> How do we protect against that currently?
> >
> > What changes the picture is that you just add new possibilities to be
> > possibly attacked and as we all know sco wont be the last, it was not the
> > smartest either...
>
> So the presence of a choice of venue clause is a quantitative
> difference rather than a qualitative one?

I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing 
against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ? 

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Olaf van der Spek]

On 9/9/05, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> >> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> >> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
> >> discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
> >> meaningfull to discriminate against it?
> >
> > Try "people who do not have enough money to travel to $VENUE to defend
> > themselves from a frivolous lawsuit -- one that they will lose by defaulting
> > their court appearance". I think Debian agrees that "poor people" in general
> > is a group that is protected by DFSG#5.
> 
> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
> them?

It certainly sounds better. The licensor can then choose not to
enforce it, whereas the licensee wouldn't have the choice not to
defend himself.

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

[Matthew Garrett]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
>> fivolous lawsuits.
> 
> No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of
> jurisdiction, no harassment results.

Eh? They can sue you in your jurisdiction. In the case you're worrying
about (obnoxious large businesses suing people in order to intimidate
them), the difference in cost is unlikely to deter them.
 
>> I think that a copyleft license is utterly pointless if there's no way
>> for the licensor to be able to afford to sue infringers.
> 
> According to your argument, the GPL and BSD license must be pointless,
> because they don't contain any obnoxious choice-of-venue clauses.

If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I
think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't
enforce?

>> But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software
>> license *does* have something to do with software freedom.
> 
> Not anything I can read in the DFSG.

The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
discrimination against licensors without money?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Matthew Garrett]

George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
>> impression that it was generally accepted.
> 
> I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held. 
> Can you prove somehow that all of them around the globe are sane and wont be 
> used for speculations ... 

If a license chooses a jurisdiction that is known to be insane then that
specific case may be non-free.

>> So the presence of a choice of venue clause is a quantitative
>> difference rather than a qualitative one?
> 
> I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing 
> against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ? 

The presence or absence of a choice of venue clause does not alter the
fact that the licensor can make baseless challenges against the user.
The ease with which they can do so varies to some degree, but for large
evil companies the practical difference is going to be small.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Humberto Massa Guimarães]

> The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
> discrimination against licensors without money?
DFSG #5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."

This implies, at least to me, that the _licensor_ is not allowed to
discriminate against a person or group, because he/she is the one who
chooses the license.
--
HTH,
Massa


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Michael Poole]

Matthew Garrett writes:

> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
>>> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
>>> that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for
>>> me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to
>>> deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer.
>>> Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me
>>> than being sued here.
>> 
>> The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find 
>> some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange.
>
> That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
> impression that it was generally accepted.

Choice of law is generally accepted because no one has explained why
the chosen laws inherently discriminate against groups.  Some legal
systems/chosen laws would fail "must not discriminate against groups"
in obvious ways, but they have not been specified in licenses.

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>>> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
>>> fivolous lawsuits.

>> No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of
>> jurisdiction, no harassment results.

> Eh? They can sue you in your jurisdiction.

Yes they can. But that gives me excellent chances to convince the
court that the case is devoid of merit - *without* having to spend a
fortune and tons of time on travel.

> In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
> people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
> unlikely to deter them.

The point is that the cost *for me* of defending myself is much more
favourable.

>> According to your argument, the GPL and BSD license must be pointless,
>> because they don't contain any obnoxious choice-of-venue clauses.

> If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I
> think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't
> enforce?

In the free software world, the point of having a license is to
*allow* others to use, share and extend your software.

> The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
> discrimination against licensors without money?

That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned
exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author
thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something
we consider at all. We can just observe that sufficiently many
software authors *have* been willing to do so that we can put together
a good free OS. There is no reason to start including software in our
OS where the user only gets freedoms with this kind of strings
attached.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "I always thought being *real* sad
would be *cooler* than acting *fake*
 sad, but it's not. It's not cool at *all*."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>> I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing 
>> against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ? 

> The presence or absence of a choice of venue clause does not alter the
> fact that the licensor can make baseless challenges against the user.

It very much alters the degree of harm to the user that such baseless
challenges give cause to.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
  en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger
  forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi."

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

[Michael Poole]

Matthew Garrett writes:

> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
>>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
>> 
>> You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the
>> licensor gets carte blanche to harrass licensees with frivolous
>> lawsuits. That is not reality.
>
> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
> fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs.

This seems remarkably similar to the argument "The user has carte
blanche to exercise DFSG freedoms; the only thing that a use fee
changes are the costs."  Does that mean that DFSG#1 allows fees for
all users of software?

At least in the US, it is fairly cheap (<$10k, predominantly in lawyer
fees) to have a lawsuit with improper venue dismissed, and those costs
can often be awarded to the defendant.  Even if costs are not awarded,
the US's Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (to wit, FRCP 41(d)) can
have the judge order the plaintiff to pay for previously dismissed
actions before further hearing any sufficiently similar action.

>> Do you think that the GPL and the BSD licenses are both pointless?
>
> I think that a copyleft license is utterly pointless if there's no way
> for the licensor to be able to afford to sue infringers. You might as
> well just have released the code into the public domain.
>
>>> And, hence, discriminate against rich ones?
>> 
>> We *should* discriminate against software whose authors wants the
>> right to order all users and distributors to travel around the globe
>> on their whim. Such harassment has nothing at all to do with software
>> freedom.
>
> But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software
> license *does* have something to do with software freedom. There are
> always tradeoffs.

Would you prefer an OSL-style license based on a contract where the
distributor(s) explicitly agree to provide source code to the
licensee, handing enforcement ability to all licensees?

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Matthew Garrett]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
>> people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
>> unlikely to deter them.
> 
> The point is that the cost *for me* of defending myself is much more
> favourable.

You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which
isn't very realistic. If you want to redefine choice of venue as
"Discriminates against poor people who are competent to represent
themselves legally", then I'd be more inclined to take it seriously.

>> If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I
>> think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't
>> enforce?
> 
> In the free software world, the point of having a license is to
> *allow* others to use, share and extend your software.

No. The point of the GPL is to allow others to use, share and extend
your software and to ensure that their derivative works remain free
themselves. If you can't do the latter, you might as well have released
it into the public domain.
 
>> The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
>> discrimination against licensors without money?
> 
> That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned
> exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author
> thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something
> we consider at all. We can just observe that sufficiently many
> software authors *have* been willing to do so that we can put together
> a good free OS. There is no reason to start including software in our
> OS where the user only gets freedoms with this kind of strings
> attached.

Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only
ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it
restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers.
In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical
for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. The fact that it
has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, any
more than the fact that decss can be used to facilitate DVD piracy makes
it evil.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>>> In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
>>> people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
>>> unlikely to deter them.

>> The point is that the cost *for me* of defending myself is much more
>> favourable.

> You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which
> isn't very realistic.

No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no
reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* one is forced to defend oneself
in an unknown legal system with a foreign language).

And even if a lawyer proves necessary, standard insurance will usually
cover his fees. But I'm bloody sure that a standard insurance policy
will *not* cover my cost in cases where I have previously agreed to
let myself be sued in a foreign country.

>> In the free software world, the point of having a license is to
>> *allow* others to use, share and extend your software.

> No. The point of the GPL is to allow others to use, share and extend
> your software and to ensure that their derivative works remain free
> themselves.

In that order.

> If you can't do the latter, you might as well have released it into
> the public domain.

Yes, but if you don't do the former, the latter has nothing to do with
freedom anyway.

> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
> not just the users.

Yes, but the "if you stick to using software from main, we will do our
best to check that you have such-and-such rights" part of it is a
promise to the users. There are other parts of the social contract
that make promises to other parts of the community.

> Arguing that the rights of the user are the only ones that matter
> suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it restricts the rights
> of users in favour of the rights of developers.

The GPL does give the user those rights we promise to users that they
will have. Whether or not it gives any rights beyond that is
immaterial.

> In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more
> practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses.

That does not change the fact that we would be going back on our
promise to the users if we started including software that required
them to subject themselves to that risking.

> The fact that it has the potential to be used against users doesn't
> make it evil,

Who is speaking about evil?

-- 
Henning Makholm   "The great secret, known to internists and
 learned early in marriage by internists' wives, but
   still hidden from the general public, is that most things get
 better by themselves. Most things, in fact, are better by morning."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[George Danchev]

On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
--cut--
> > That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned
> > exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author
> > thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something
> > we consider at all. We can just observe that sufficiently many
> > software authors *have* been willing to do so that we can put together
> > a good free OS. There is no reason to start including software in our
> > OS where the user only gets freedoms with this kind of strings
> > attached.
>
> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
> not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only
> ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it
> restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers.
> In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical
> for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. The fact that it
> has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, any
> more than the fact that decss can be used to facilitate DVD piracy makes
> it evil.

The diff is that you can not use GPL in baseless lawsuits against users and/or 
developers. Can you ? Do you risk your baseless adventure will be severely 
striken back in any sane countries ? 

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Matthew Garrett]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which
>> isn't very realistic.
> 
> No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no
> reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* one is forced to defend oneself
> in an unknown legal system with a foreign language).
> 
> And even if a lawyer proves necessary, standard insurance will usually
> cover his fees. But I'm bloody sure that a standard insurance policy
> will *not* cover my cost in cases where I have previously agreed to
> let myself be sued in a foreign country.

My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and
housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary
legal cases. In any case, "Discriminates against poor people who have an
insurance policy that covers legal cases in their home country but not
elsewhere"? That's beginning to sound a bit fringe.
 
>> No. The point of the GPL is to allow others to use, share and extend
>> your software and to ensure that their derivative works remain free
>> themselves.
> 
> In that order.

Not at all. The strength of the copyleft in the GPL suggests that
they're all treated with equal priority.

>> If you can't do the latter, you might as well have released it into
>> the public domain.
> 
> Yes, but if you don't do the former, the latter has nothing to do with
> freedom anyway.

Right. This sort of clause doesn't impair your ability to use, share or
extend software except in the case of someone suing you, which *they can
do anyway*.

>> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
>> not just the users.
> 
> Yes, but the "if you stick to using software from main, we will do our
> best to check that you have such-and-such rights" part of it is a
> promise to the users. There are other parts of the social contract
> that make promises to other parts of the community.

And what rights are we taking away from them? The right not to be sued?
We don't provide them with that right in the first place.

>> In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more
>> practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses.
> 
> That does not change the fact that we would be going back on our
> promise to the users if we started including software that required
> them to subject themselves to that risking.

What risk? I can already sue you in the UK, if I want. I could forge
evidence that suggested that you'd agreed to that. I could expose you to
the same costs without you ever having touched a piece of software that
was under a choice of venue clause. How are we protecting our users from
anything here?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Matthew Garrett]

George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
>> not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only
>> ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it
>> restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers.
>> In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical
>> for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. The fact that it
>> has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, any
>> more than the fact that decss can be used to facilitate DVD piracy makes
>> it evil.
> 
> The diff is that you can not use GPL in baseless lawsuits against users 
> and/or 
> developers. Can you ? Do you risk your baseless adventure will be severely 
> striken back in any sane countries ? 

If I'm willing to lie (and I'd have to be to be filing a baseless
lawsuit), then yes, I can use the GPL in baseless lawsuits against users
and/or developers.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Matthew Garrett]

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
> 
>> My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and
>> housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary
>> legal cases. In any case, "Discriminates against poor people who have an
>> insurance policy that covers legal cases in their home country but not
>> elsewhere"? That's beginning to sound a bit fringe.
> 
> It is considerably less fringe than "Choice of venue is
> non-discriminatory because suitable lies allow anybody to sue you
> anywhere over anything even with no license and only the cost changes
> if you have to defend yourself in the other guy's home court because
> of a software license."

I'd disagree, but I think that's a matter of opinion.

> As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to
> support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to
> what the license imposes on or requires from users.

What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that
can't actually be exercised in life? There is no "freedom not to be
sued", so it's impossible for a license to contravene that.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Michael Poole]

Matthew Garrett writes:

> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to
>> support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to
>> what the license imposes on or requires from users.
>
> What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that
> can't actually be exercised in life? There is no "freedom not to be
> sued", so it's impossible for a license to contravene that.

There are the DFSG freedoms to not have to pay a fee and to not be
discriminated against, and licenses can contravene those.  Even though
a sociopath can impose costs on an arbitrary person, we should not
treat being vicimized by a sociopath as the baseline for freedom.

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
> >> that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for
> >> me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to
> >> deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer.
> >> Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me
> >> than being sued here.
> > 
> > The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may 
> > find 
> > some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange.
> 
> That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
> impression that it was generally accepted.

Only insofar as the laws generally chosen are accepted. If somebody
showed up with a choice for Swaziland[0], we might have a problem with
that. But although US law is fairly right-wing, and German law is
fairly crazy, neither of them are actually prejudicial in a fair court.

[0] It's an autocracy (under state of emergency rules for about 30
years, they're currently trying to reestablish some semblence of
democracy); the case would be determined by who paid the
largest bribe to the king. Given his proclivities, that might be
the one with the cutest intern.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 10:24:19PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 9. MISCELLANEOUS.
> 
> > Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
> > shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License.
> 
> Can a license exclude application of laws? Maybe there's a jurisdiction which
> has such a law on the books, which _can_ be opted out of, but I doubt such
> exists, as it would defeat the purpose of having that law in the first place.

Under certain limited conditions, yes. Generally, no.

There's a few statutes on the books around the place which say "This
applies to [...] unless waived by both parties" and similar stuff.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Matthew Garrett]

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that
>> can't actually be exercised in life? There is no "freedom not to be
>> sued", so it's impossible for a license to contravene that.
> 
> There are the DFSG freedoms to not have to pay a fee and to not be
> discriminated against, and licenses can contravene those.  Even though
> a sociopath can impose costs on an arbitrary person, we should not
> treat being vicimized by a sociopath as the baseline for freedom.

Right, but the "cost" being suggested only appears when someone is sued
frivilously (I'm assuming that we don't think that the freedom to
contravene a license without being sued is something to worry about...),
which approximates sociopathic behaviour. What practical difference does
a choice of venue clause make to the user?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Processed: Re: Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via mysql isn't working anymore.

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> reassign 327417 glibc
Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via 
mysql isn't working anymore.
Bug reassigned from package `general' to `glibc'.

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Announcing kernel-handbook project

[Jurij Smakov]

[This message is cross-posted to multiple mailing lists for announcement 
purposes only. Please edit the address list before replying! Suggested 
address for followups is [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Hello,

In an attempt to improve the situation with Debian kernel documentation I 
have recently initiated the kernel-handbook project on Alioth. The goal of 
this project is to create and maintain the Debian kernel handbook, a 
primary access point to all kernel-related user documentation in Debian. 
At the moment it only contains the description of the new kernel packaging 
scheme, which kernel team introduced with the upload of 2.6.12 kernel 
debs. Comments and suggestions regarding the contents are, of course, welcome.


In addition to announcing the project, I would like to call for volunteers 
to contribute and maintain separate parts of the handbook. This project is 
an ideal candidate for team maintenance and the SVN repository has been 
created to host it. If you are interested, please contact the project's 
mailing list (see below). Project information:


Current version: http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org
Source in SVN  : svn://svn.debian.org/svn/kernel-handbook/trunk
Mailing list   : [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks and best regards,

Jurij Smakov[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/   KeyID: C99E03CC


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]