[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Mozilla Public License is non-free: stipulates court venue ?

On 2004-06-09 19:08:06 +0100 Lex Spoon <lex@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:

I'm afraid that is a revisionist interpretation.  First, Mozilla is
certainly intended to be "Open Source", which is essentially the same as
what Debian means by "free":

The jury seems out on that. They could mean *anything* by "Open Source". http://mjr.towers.org.uk/writing/ambigopen.html

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 Matters.

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/

Reply to: