Re: Mozilla Public License is non-free: stipulates court venue ?
On 2004-06-09 19:08:06 +0100 Lex Spoon <email@example.com> wrote:
I'm afraid that is a revisionist interpretation. First, Mozilla is
certainly intended to be "Open Source", which is essentially the same
what Debian means by "free":
The jury seems out on that. They could mean *anything* by "Open
Even assuming they mean OSI's OSD and not whatever fuzzy idea, OSI
seem to have a very different process to Debian and don't seem
concerned with the four freedoms at all. "OSI Certified" seems to mean
roughly "no-one found a flaw in the licence advocate's lawyer's
analysis that we couldn't help them patch up" while "DFSG-free" should
mean "there is rough consensus of debian-legal contributors that this
could be part of the debian OS distribution without violating the
debian social contract".
To the choice of venue problem, which I'm still not sure about:
Does the possibility of ruling by a distant court impact my freedom to
distribute the work? Definitely, if they can get and enforce a ruling
on me without having to prove their case or give me a reasonable
opportunity to defend myself.
Is the default to appear in my local court? I don't know, but it looks
like it from Articles 2 and 5.3 of the Brussels Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Why don't venue clauses fail common tests like "tentacles of evil"?
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/