Re: BitTorrent Open Source License (Proposed Changes)
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:26 pm, Michael Janssen wrote:
>> Sean Kellogg <skellogg <at> u.washington.edu> writes:
>>
>> [8< Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8<]
>>
>> > Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
>> > But if they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great for
>> > users of Debian! I'm surprised that folks on this list are comfortable
>> > with such strong choice-of-law provisions. Again, I don't believe such
>> > clauses are non-free, but I believe I've heard the argument made before.
>> > (A license has got to be interpreted under laws somewhere... might as
>> > well establish the laws prior to the agreement instead of fighting it out
>> > in court.)
>>
>> I was under the impression that choice-of-law was OK for most, but
>> choice-of-venue was cause for non-DFSG-ness.
>
> Like I said, I'm not convinced. If there is a suit, the suit must be brought
> somewhere... what is non-free about deciding that somewhere ahead of time?
> Inconvenient to you? Maybe. But as I undersatnd it, being sued is always
> inconvenient, regardless of where the suit will be brought. I hardly
> consider that descrimination, so what DFSG clause is applicable here?
In contrast to choice of law, choice of venue requires users who are
not normally subject to that court's personal jurisdiction to give up
a right they normally have to use the software. Take your pick
whether that is discrimination or a fee or something else, but waiver
of pre-existing rights is a clear violation of the spirit of the DFSG.
Michael Poole
Reply to: