That is not totally correct. First, choice of venue clauses are, as a rule, totally legal.
In all countries? Do you have any reference for that? 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.
I am not a lawyer and I wonder if this totally exact. Anyway even if you are right this will be confirmed by the foreign tribunal and if the issue is not controversial it is normal that you will condemned. In the specific case of the Adobe license, which basically let you do anything you want, I do not see how you can non controversially break the contract.
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.
Sure. In any case in case of a lawsuit; the cost of the lawyer will be infinitively more than the cost of the travel. The fact of being sued is terribly annoying; the choice of venue appear to be negligible.
Debian legal has a tendency to declare non-free a lot of license while all other declare them free or open source (the open source movement has basically the same rule as Debian). The same people then say that "is obvious by the DFSG" or that "anybody know that is non-free". Debian will lose its credibility if it goes on this way. It should focus on proprietary software and not on software which are free but have a license that is not exactly the ideal one. Both the FSF and the open source movement have understood this.
Olive