Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:18:55AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > To be more specific, we generally consider choice-of-venue non-free when 
> it 
> > > applies to suits brought by the copyright holder (/licensor) against other 
> > > people.
> > > 
> > > It's free when it only applies to suits brought by other people against 
> the 
> > > copyright holder (/licensor).
> 
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I think I agree, but I don't know of a license brought here that actually
> > does this--I don't think it's been discussed.  Know of any examples, so we
> > can wave it around for a while and maybe conclude this for certain?  Being
> > able to give an alternative to a general choice of venue clause that is
> > uncontroversially free might go a long way towards fixing the problem.
> 
> Scottish Creative Commons license, attribution or
> attribution-sharealike.  (Drafted with our assistance.  And I
> believe 100% free.  And in fairly "plain English".  I love this
> license.)
> Here's the "attribution" version:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode
> 
> 6.5 This Licence is governed by the law of Scotland and the parties
> accept the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Scotland to
> decide any action or claim directed against the Licensor.

Doesn't this cause problems when the code is forked?  If someone in
France forks the code, then they have to travel to Scotland to defend
themselves against any frivolous lawsuits.  That allows the original
licensors a bit more control over the code than might be desired.

I am not sure that allowing choice of venue clauses to be overridded
is ever a good idea.  The law has a number of (imperfect) safety
hatches to prevent forum selection abuse.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu