Re: sendmail X license (fwd)
Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Scripsit Walter Landry <email@example.com>
> > Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > "This license is governed by California law"
> > > OK.
> > > "and both of us
> > > agree that for any dispute arising out of or relating to this Software,
> > > that jurisdiction and venue is proper in San Francisco or Alameda
> > > counties."
> > > No we don't. This is non-free.
> > I fail to see the difference.
> There's a big difference between choice of law and choice of venue.
> If it *just* said "governed by California law", and the licensor
> decided to file a frivolous lawsuit against me (think
> tentacles-of-evil test if you will), they would still have to do it in
> *my* home court, and they would then have to explain to *my* local
> judge that California law interprets "accompany the copy with full
> source code" as implicitly including an obligation to pet a cat.
They wouldn't have to file the lawsuit in your local court. In fact,
if they tried, claiming that you violated California law, the judge
would throw it out, as the judge has no jurisdition over California
law. The judge may not even be able to read California law, and so is
not capable of rendering judgements based on his understanding of it.
Rather, they would file in California court, because that is where
California law is decided. The whole point of choice of law clauses
is to force everything to happen in a particular place.
>  I don't know whether this is specifically the case in California,
> but there are plenty of jurisdictions where it is true.
I don't think that is actually the case. I think you still have to
convince the judge. It might not be hard if the opponent is not
there, but it does deter the most egregious cases.