Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta - Debian

This is a discussion on Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta - Debian ; On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:13:44AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > It is a freedom that I have by default; if I accept the CDDL I no longer > have that freedom[1]. [...] > [1] Technically, not the right ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

  1. Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

    On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:13:44AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
    > It is a freedom that I have by default; if I accept the CDDL I no longer
    > have that freedom[1]. [...]
    > [1] Technically, not the right to "choose a venue", but the right to not be
    > sued in a venue where I have no legal presence.


    Err, that's not a violation of your rights, it's a waste of the court's
    time... If the court doesn't see it as a waste of its time, and issues
    you with a summons anyway, you're involved. Cf [0]. You might as
    well say you've got the "right" not to be flamed on a list you're not
    subscribed to.

    Cheers,
    aj

    [0] http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...557842,00.html

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iD8DBQFGY+bGOxe8dCpOPqoRAqucAKCHDLWbzupKuHHAqyCqS8 D39azoJwCeO0rn
    m1rIuoAQwP4zeZkgp6xhRVw=
    =6YGW
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

    On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:17:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
    > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:13:44AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
    > > It is a freedom that I have by default; if I accept the CDDL I no longer
    > > have that freedom[1]. [...]
    > > [1] Technically, not the right to "choose a venue", but the right to not be
    > > sued in a venue where I have no legal presence.


    > Err, that's not a violation of your rights, it's a waste of the court's
    > time... If the court doesn't see it as a waste of its time, and issues
    > you with a summons anyway, you're involved. Cf [0]. You might as
    > well say you've got the "right" not to be flamed on a list you're not
    > subscribed to.


    Addressing a flame to me that I will never see does me no harm. I would say
    that I have the right to not be *slandered* on a list that I'm not
    subscribed to; given the trends toward globalization and data mining of
    citizens, I wouldn't assume at all that a default judgement against me in
    some foreign land is equivalent to an unseen flame instead of an unseen
    slander.

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


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread