US venue clause, was: Summary Update: MPL ...
On 2004-06-24 01:23:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:57:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[...] it seems they would wait for the verdict from the
defendant's location, as usual. Is that true?
Yuck. Kinda want to ask a lawyer about that sort of stuff. It's always
possible that the clause is (mal)formed such that it becomes a no-op;
wouldn't be the first time we've seen that.
US copyright law seems to refer to a civil court that has
jurisdiction. Searching for explanation of US jurisdiction rules threw
up http://www.west.net/~smith/jurisdiction.htm and some pages with
roughly the same.
Hopefully a USian familiar with this whole venue question will step
forwards (or maybe I will get an explanation from elsewhere), but it's
a bit hit-and-miss for us non-USians to decide conclusively on
something only affecting the US which seems to be written to depend on
some US legal practices.
Finally, I realise I should know this, but how does choice of venue
beyond DFSG? Discrimination against groups of people?
It's one of those things which don't really fit into the DFSG, but
which are still unambiguously bad. That's what the 'G' means, after
Aye, but if we can't link it in at all, we have a hard time justifying
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing