Re: Draft Summary: MPL is not DFSG free
Matthew Palmer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:48:23PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
> > I am wondering this as well. It might actually be legally *preferable*
> > to have a license where choice of venue is specified, because otherwise
> > one needs to be prepared to face suits in all kinds of places.
> Preferable for licensor or licensee? The licensor still needs to face suits
> everywhere -- not everyone who might sue him/her/it will have agreed to the
> licence (and if they have, they'll probably work out some argument to avoid
> it). The licensee is unlikely (probabilistically speaking) to live in the
> licensor's choice of venue, so the licensee is screwed anyway.
> Not quite sure how putting choice of venue in a free licence helps either
> party. But feel free to expand on your idea.
It helps both parties because it eliminates some possible legal threats.
The clause will eliminate *some* number of possible court cases,
because the cases would be in the wrong location annd the clause would
be enough to get them kicked out. Note that the clause does not need to
eliminate *all* cases from outside of the stated venue for it to be
useful. If it eliminates *any* cases then it can save headaches for
both parties in the agreement.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and I am relying on normal logic and normal English
language in these interpretations. At the end of the day, it seems that
we will really need some lawyerly input before we really know.