Re: MTL license
As well, the fact that is is framed as a "license agreement" invokes
contract law instead of pure copyright... in the U.S., contract law is
different in every state and some even have gap-filling measures
which, in a court of law, would add things to the license that even
the licensor didn't intend (choice of venue changes this, but choice
of venue provisions are about as non-free as it gets).
On 13 Sep 2004 09:22:47 -0400, Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:49:01AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > This is choice of venue; it means that, if the licensor wants, he can
> > > force me to trek out to Indiana at whim to defend myself in court,
> > > overriding the normal legal mechanisms for choosing a suitable venue.
> > > I believe most of d-legal considers this to be non-free; I agree.
> > Of course, it also means that if Microsoft uses a derivative of this in
> > some proprietary component of Windows that the licensor can avoid having
> > to trek out to Seattle to contest the issue.
> > [Personally, I'm more ambivalent about this being a non-free issue
> > than you.]
> At least in the case of Microsoft, this is not true. Since Microsoft
> does business in every state of the USA and many foreign countries, it
> is subject to personal jurisdiction in their local courts. Venue is
> satisfied by having an aggrieved party live there or by the alleged
> infringement taking place there (other things can probably satisfy the
> requirements for proper venue).
> Choice-of-venue, as opposed to choice-of-law, mostly makes it easier
> to sue small people.
> Michael Poole
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student