Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
** David Nusinow ::
> If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it.
> If the two sides live in different places, one of them has to
> travel no matter what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say
> that choice of venue clauses aren't Free, then the person bringing
> the suit will very likely have to travel and pay the fee (or
> that's my interpretation of Humberto and Michael Poole's
> responses). If not, then the person defending the suit will have
> to pay the fee. Either way, there is a cost involved. Why are we
> choosing sides if such a cost can't be avoided?
1. it's greater the probability that the licensee is poorer than the
2. the definition of "user" (as in "we care about our users") fits
the licensee better than the licensor -- even if it also fits the
licensor; and, finally
3. in the case of a fork (fork == GOOD(TM)) people can end up with a
license that make BOTH the licensee and the licensor pay some
(possibly hefty) cost to litigate the terms of the license.
Example of #3 above: I start a (small) companya that distributes a
fork of Mozilla -- under MPL1.1 -- , with a lot of improvements.
Someone in Argentina forks my fork, and disobeys some of MPL's
rules. Now, to prosecute that someone, I have to travel to
California -- because I also agreed to the venue of the MPL 1.1.
Worse yet, someone in my home town could be the culprit, and I would
still have to go California to prosecute him... probably.
This does not seem Free Software to me.