Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: Choice of venue argumentation.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Upto now, the identified problems are threefold, so we can start subthread for
> analysing and discussing them separatedly. Please don't read to much into my
> tentative of concise sumary below for each of those, and argument clearly in
> followups to each of them individually.
>
> Also, for clarification of the discussion, let's call A the upstream author, M
> the modificator, and U the end user receiving code from M.
>
> 3) The choice of venue. The ocaml QPL mentions the choice of venue for law
> suits as being the Versaille court where the upstream authors reside. Claims
> are made that this is non-free, as it poses a burden over U or M, if A
> decides to sur him. No DFSG point seems to cover this case directly.
| Choice of Law
|
| This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
| settled by the Court of Versailles.
Ok, this is the last point of contention. The choice of laws seems to be
acceptable, and the choice of venue seems to be the only thing under
discussion, altough the DFSG doens't make any mention of it.
I would thus consider it to be a minor inconvenience to any honest recipient
of the
software, and have a hard time realising that this would be an insurmentable
cost in any case, beyond a few international phone calls, letters or other
ways of remote conferencing.
The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of Versailles is
probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a lawyer of similar competence
and fluent in the Laws of France, in a country local to the defendent. I don't
have hard data over this though, and would welcome hard data to the contrary.
Wild speculation is of no use here though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: