Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

[lex@cc.gatech.edu]

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> <posted & mailed>

Please don't do that; I'm on the list.


> lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> > I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
> > of venue.  It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the agreement,
> > and that's what a choice of venue clause tells you (at least, to the
> > point anything is certain in law).
> 
> Wrong wrong wrong.  Please pay attention.

I know all of what you say and I stand by the claim.  Instead of
flaming, please participate in the debate.


> Yes, these are different.  Courts can, and will, decide cases based on
> foreign laws.  If there is no choice-of-venue clause, venue is decided
> (among the possible jurisdictions) mostly by how much of a pain it is for
> the various litigants to travel (the least pain is the best place).

The word "mostly" is important here.  Whether or not a choice of venue
clause is in the license, the venues that will be used for all future
cases are not completely determined.  Thus, it is difficult to sustain a
completely theoretical view on why these clauses are either preferable
or not, at least insofar as they impact the choice of venue.  Whether
it's there or not, you still don't know for sure what venue will be used,
and so how can we prefer one way or the other on principle?

To decide, then, we must fall back on practical issues, and I don't know
if anyone at all on this list is qualified to report on that.  Even if
we get an answer to that somehow (and I have suggested that choice of
venue may well be considered more favorable), what does it mean for us? 
A mere practical difference in the litigation procedure does not make
something free vs. non-free.


> We have explained repeatedly that choice of law clauses are great and fine,
> while choice of venue clauses are abusive.

Excuse me, but I am both a contributor to Debian and a heavy user.  You
are in no place to "explain" things to me.  Further, there is no "we",
because other people agree with me.  And finally, even if debian-legal
were in full unanimity other than myself, I would still have a full
right to speak up and enter the debate.

I wish we did have a real process for deciding the DFSG-freeness of
things, as opposed to loose consensus, because more and more I am seeing
a lack of consensus on debian-legal.  Barring that, you will just have
to live with people who disagree with being in your presence.



> > But don't take my advise, however much logic it may be based on.
> Namely, "none".
> 
> > Just 
> > watch what real lawyers are doing.  Real lawyers seem quite happy with
> > these clauses, both when offering and accepting them.
> 
> Well, real lawyers get paid more money if they have to travel to foreign
> countries.  Maybe they're happy about that.  So what does that have to do
> with us?  Nothing.

Nonsense.  Real lawyers cannot just sprout money out of nowhere like
this.  Why do you think *real* lawyers seem to be okay with such
clauses?


-Lex