On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 07:32:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal contributors (including me...).
And some of us think it's reasonable.
If Adobe is going to take legal action against someone else,
they'll have to deal with the jurisdiction(s) where this someone
else has a presence.
There's some benefit to Adobe if that jurisdiction is willing to turn
control of the case to the california courts, but that doesn't seem
to have any direct relevance on software freedom. It's not like
there are all that many things for Adobe to be taking action
against someone else on here.
Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit? The difference in cost
to a corporation like Adobe with a standing legal team between me suing them
in their home court and me suing them in my home court is negligible. The
difference in cost to *me* between Adobe suing *me* in my home court vs.
their home court is *not* negligible. The difference in cost to Adobe
between bringing harrassment suits against 200 mirror operators separately
in their respective jurisdictions, and bringing one suit against all two
hundred in Adobe's home jurisdiction is *also* not negligible.
Frankly, I find it amazing that even when such clauses are advanced by a
corporation like Adobe, who has been a veritable *poster child* for
corporate hostility to Free Software and the concept of a liberal IP regime,
there are still people who don't get that this additional exposure is a
loaded gun.
The big deal here is that if someone sues Adobe, Adobe
doesn't have to incur huge legal fees defending themselves.
Since it's free software, why would they want to?
No, the big deal is about the risks *I* incur. Free Software isn't about
making corporations feel good about giving their work away, it's not about
giving them a vehicle for growing their company's mindshare, and it sure as
hell isn't about seeing how many different ropes we can give copyright
holders within the letter of the DFSG before one of them decides to hang us.
It's about serving the needs of the *users* (being all of us) so that we're
free to use, create, modify, and distribute. I don't see how a choice of
venue clause can be accepted as "free" -- I certainly don't feel free
reading it, and I wouldn't feel free exercising any of the usual Free
Software rights under such a license. It may be that this doesn't follow
directly from the DFSG, but if that's the case I believe it's an argument
for fixing the DFSG, *not* for accepting as free a license that I would