Re: Debian OpenSolaris port, exchange with Sun folks in webforum/MailingList
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:32:06AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > interface is enough to stop any derivative-work-contagion, so we are back to
> > the lone choice of venue thingy, and its rather feeble argumentation on
> > debian-legal, full of chinese dissidents and desert islands :)
> > The only sane solution and the one i believe is default in international law
> > is choice of venue to be the defendants court, either zwhere he is based or
> > makes business.
> I'm confused about your opinion here. On one hand you seem to feel
> that it is OK freedom-wise for a license to have a choice-of-venue
> clause stipulating that the licensee must appear in the licensor's home
> court in any suit about the software, even when the licensee is the
Well, i am dubious about this, i think this is something that has not so much
to do with the freedom of the software, but ...
> On the other hand you say that the only sane solution is to let the
> default rules prevail and have the case take place in the defendant's
> home court.
This would indeed be nice to have, for obvious reasons, but is i belive not a
> These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
> can be "free" with a venue choice that you do not consider "sane"), so
> I must have misunderstood one of them. Could you elaborate, please?
I think both the choice of venue being the choice of the licensor and the
choice of venue being the choice of the licensee are bad. Splitting the thing
in two and having the choice of venue being the choice of the defendant is a
good middle ground, and akin to the defendee having choice of weapons in