Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>:
>
>> >>1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
>> >How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
>> >use, modify or distribute the software.
>>
>> As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
>> licensor to require out-of-pocket expenditure by any licensee on legal
>> representation in the given venue, instead of possibly representing
>> yourself in the court local to your offence as seems to happen
>> otherwise.
>
> It might do that. Or it might have exactly the opposite effect,
> depending on the legal systems involved and how they interact.
Nope. You're thinking of choice of *law*.
> If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
> particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
> legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
> DFSG-free.
There's a fairly standard international set of rules about venue. They
generally place venue in the location which causes the least trouble for
the parties overall (out of the locations which have jurisdiction).
Consideration is given to which party finds it easier to travel, etc.
Either the choice of venue clause is invalid and ignored, or it's an
imposition on whoever has the most trouble travelling!
Now, they're fine in negotiated contracts where the two parties can agree on
a venue in advance, but in unilateral licenses, they're just a power grab.
IANAL, but this is what I've learned about venue.
> Otherwise, isn't it sufficient to just mention is as a
> possible risk when the licence is being discussed and leave it at
> that?
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: