On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 09:23:03AM +0400, olive wrote: olive> olive> >This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many olive> >debian-legal contributors (including me...). olive> > olive> >In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who olive> >live far away from Santa Clara County, California, USA and thus fail olive> >DFSG#5. Those people can be forced to travel around the planet in order olive> >to defend themselves in a dispute raised by the copyright holder. olive> olive> I am not at all convinced. First, I wonder if this choice of venue is olive> legal. You must be aware of the fact that any condemnation of US olive> tribunal cannot have any effect outside of the U.S. That is not totally correct. First, choice of venue clauses are, as a rule, totally legal. Second, the judgement won't be directly enforceable in other countries, but in non-controversial cases (by controversial, I'm thinking Yahoo! and the like), it is quite easy to get a judgement called (in Europe anyway) an exequatur which renders a foreign judgement enforceable. So let's not dismiss such a clause as ineffective. olive> Anyway even without this choice of venue, I do not see anything olive> preventing Adobe from suing someone in an U.S. tribunal; so the argument olive> is in my opinion fundamentally flawed. Now I agree with you on the fact that these clauses aren't all that problematic. -- Yorick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature