On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:57:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> > wrote: > > >On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >>I didn't find the reference given in the draft summary particularly > >>helpful > >>in understanding why this makes something non-free, and similar > >>terms are > >>in some licences the FSF regards as free copyright licences. Does > >>anyone > >>have some more, please? > >Stock objection to choice of venue clauses is that they force people > >to travel at their own expense. In essence they attempt to bypass the > >legal system by making it prohibitively expensive for somebody to > >defend themselves. > > This doesn't seem to be a stock choice of venue clause, though. It > only applies when there is a US party and some have claimed that the > choice of venue clause would not necessarily prevent a US defendant > being heard in their local court, such as Nathanael Nerode in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00237.html > > For international cases, the usual venues accepted by the US seem to > be "place of origin" and "place of hurt". If the US legal system > regards the MPL as a licence, it seems they would wait for the verdict > from the defendant's location, as usual. Is that true? Yuck. Kinda want to ask a lawyer about that sort of stuff. It's always possible that the clause is (mal)formed such that it becomes a no-op; wouldn't be the first time we've seen that. > Finally, I realise I should know this, but how does choice of venue go > beyond DFSG? Discrimination against groups of people? It's one of those things which don't really fit into the DFSG, but which are still unambiguously bad. That's what the 'G' means, after all. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature