Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: Choice of venue argumentation.

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>]

mdpoole@troilus.org <mdpoole@troilus.org>:

> I think that such a clause would be binding in the USA.  Courts have
> held that choice of venue clauses in "click-through" agreements are
> binding (Groff v America Online in RI Superior Court, 1998), so I
> suspect a copyright-based license clause would also be binding.
> 
> A good lawyer might find some loophole,

I'm not even a bad lawyer, but here's an idea: produce a long list of
defences, most of which have nothing to do with the licence. When
venue is being decided pretend you're equally serious about all of the
defences even if you know full well that they're all crap apart from
the ones that relies on the licence. It might work, because the court
might not want to get into analysing your defences until the venue has
been decided.

Still, there's not much point in worrying about whether the
choice-of-venue clause works or not. In deciding whether the licence
is free the intention is more important, I think.