Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> The difference is that without this clause, the first step is to claim
> that the court in question does not have jurisdiction over the
> parties.[1] With this clause, before you can get the court to agree
> that California is an improper venue, you have to get the court to
> agree that the clause is non-binding.
You can still claim that the court in question does not have
jurisdiction over the parties. Only if the case has merit --
only if there's a valid dispute involving the license -- would
the CA courts have jurisdiction.
On 1/29/06, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> No, what you describe would be a bug in the legal system, not a bug in the
> license. That's a crucial difference. There is nothing *in the GPL* that
> gives the copyright holder unfair leverage to sue a bunch of people at low
> per-unit cost to them.
I'm still not convinced that this phrase "Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of
Santa Clara County, California, USA." gives the copyright holder
unfair leverage against anyone in any free software context.
It gives Adobe some advantage if someone tries to sue them for not
providing a support for the software, but why should I care about
that?
What is the risk here? What dispute can Adobe initiate against
someone in a legit free software context that wouldn't get laughed
out of court? Trade secrets? This ageement doesn't say anything
about trade secrets. Violation of copyright? The only way to
violate this copyright is to take more from Adobe than they've
given. Patents? This agreement doesn't say anything about
patents. Trademarks? That's already a problem, and I don't
think we have any free software requirement that people have
to be able to falsely claim a right to other people's trademarks.
But let's take trademarks as an example, since the license does
talk about trademarks. If the trademark itself is in dispute,
it's not clear that the license is relevant -- only after you've
lost the case and it's been shown that you are abusing Adobe's
trademarks would this license be relevant. And, usually people come
to an accomodation long before a court has to rule on that kind
of thing.
So what is this "harassing legal action" going to be about?
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: