Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed
On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I didn't find the reference given in the draft summary particularly
in understanding why this makes something non-free, and similar
in some licences the FSF regards as free copyright licences. Does
have some more, please?
Stock objection to choice of venue clauses is that they force people
to travel at their own expense. In essence they attempt to bypass the
legal system by making it prohibitively expensive for somebody to
This doesn't seem to be a stock choice of venue clause, though. It
only applies when there is a US party and some have claimed that the
choice of venue clause would not necessarily prevent a US defendant
being heard in their local court, such as Nathanael Nerode in
For international cases, the usual venues accepted by the US seem to
be "place of origin" and "place of hurt". If the US legal system
regards the MPL as a licence, it seems they would wait for the verdict
from the defendant's location, as usual. Is that true?
Additionally, the expense is ultimately borne by the licensor if they
bring abusive cases. That's not ideal, because you're out-of-pocket
until then, but it is another twist.
Finally, I realise I should know this, but how does choice of venue go
beyond DFSG? Discrimination against groups of people?
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing