Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta In message <20070603194630.GE23796@grep.be>, Wouter Verhelst   writes >On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: >[...] >> Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of >> jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. In >[...] >> Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the >> ability to use or modify a work, it appears be a fee, and as such >> fails DFSG 1. > >That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines "fee" as >"something involving the transfer of money". If it isn't, then the GPL >is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are >required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries >from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right ("the >right not to distribute any source") which you might otherwise have, >which could be considered to be a fee. And what about societies without money? "fee" does NOT equal "money".  Your "common knowledge" is not my understanding ... The GPL is a *licence*. By definition it is a *one* *way* grant *from*  the licensor. The "choice of venue" is a demand by the licensor for  something back. Therefore any licence with a "choice of venue" clause  cannot be a pure licence. Oh - and the GPL does NOT "demand anything back", so there is no payment  *to* *the* *licensor*. Cheers, Wol --  Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk --  To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org