Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue could be
> DFSG-free (see, our opinions are not set in stone), although I still
> dislike it; see the bottom of
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00812.html, which
> nobody commented on.
Since apparently it requires comment to prevent strange hypotheses
from affecting "consensus", let me dispel the fallacy of point #2 from
your email:
> (2) However, even without such clauses, it's quite easy to use
> frivolous lawsuits to do the same amount of damage, thanks to
> problems with the US and probably other court systems. (It can be
> argued whether or not this is true, but I'll believe it.)
Read any complaint filed in a US court. One of the first claims you
will find (usually before even the listing of the parties) are those
that argue why the court has jurisdiction and venue over the matter.
If those claims are missing, the court will refuse to hear the case.
If those claims are fraudulent -- for example, they falsely claim the
defendant lives in the same state as the plaintiff -- the plaintiff
who filed them (or their lawyer) may be liable for contempt of court.
Choice of venue clauses compel the defendant to defend himself where
the author chooses, and in that upset the normal balance of law. They
are a form of discrimination against people who live outside the
chosen venue (DFSG#5), in addition to failing the proposed Dictator
Test.
Michael Poole
Reply to: