Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
> >> that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for
> >> me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to
> >> deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer.
> >> Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me
> >> than being sued here.
> >
> > The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may
> > find some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange.
>
> That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
> impression that it was generally accepted.
I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held.
Can you prove somehow that all of them around the globe are sane and wont be
used for speculations ...
<put-more-insane-fast-money-seeking-killing-any-competition-monopilic-methods-here>
I have currently no args against choice-of-law, but doesn't mean it is sane
and safe. I just wonder why COV and COL are not present in proven licenses
like GPL, BSD, Artistic, and why are they needed from now on.
> >> How do we protect against that currently?
> >
> > What changes the picture is that you just add new possibilities to be
> > possibly attacked and as we all know sco wont be the last, it was not the
> > smartest either...
>
> So the presence of a choice of venue clause is a quantitative
> difference rather than a qualitative one?
I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing
against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ?
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: