On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 05:20:14AM +1100, Glenn L McGrath wrote: > On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:09:01 +0000 > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 12:37:53AM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > > The laws that are applied are the place where the alleged violation > > > occurred. If I break U.S. Copyright Law in Europe, there is no > > > case. U.S. laws have no force in Europe. If I break U.S. Copyright > > > Law in the United States with a some European court in the Choice of > > > Venue clause, the European court would apply U.S. Law. If you find > > > that a little bit off, you are beginning to see why Choice of Venue > > > clauses are regularilly thrown out in an international setting > > > (court's really don't like to interpret the laws of other > > > sovereigns). > > > > You may find it interesting to note that they reject choice of venue > > for several of the same reasons that we do. (As a rule of thumb, > > anything that a court would throw out for being overbearing is going > > to be non-free). > > It would be usefull to people like me if you related your judgments (or > rules of thumb) back to the DFSG. If it could be derived from first principles then it wouldn't *be* a rule of thumb, it would be a proven conclusion. A "rule of thumb" is constructed by doing stuff a lot, and observing that certain things are strongly correlated (originally, comparing it to the length of your thumb). They indicate that if you have one thing, you've probably got the other. They do not even attempt to indicate causality, nor are they valid tools in a proof. They are a way to get a probably approximate answer with minimal effort. Sheesh. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature