Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > You can still claim that the court in question does not have
> > jurisdiction over the parties.
> You can claim that the moon is cheese too, if you want. The point
> is that in order for the court to agree that they don't have
> jurisdiction, you have to get them to agree that the clause is
> non-binding. [The claiming is a lessser issue; what the court has to
> do in order to agree with your claims is critical here.]
My point was that a harassing case based on this license
would be much akin to claiming that the moon is cheese.
> > Only if the case has merit -- only if there's a valid dispute
> > involving the license -- would the CA courts have jurisdiction.
> Issues of jurisdiction are one of the first things to be determined in
> most cases, they occur well before the court even begins entertaining
> issues of merit.
For this clause of the license to apply at all, there would need
to be a dispute about something related to the license. That
means a dispute about Adobe's customer service or warranty
support for this software, or a displute about the software
being distributed without proper copyright notices or with
improper trademark notices.
So this aspect -- "what is the dispute about" -- would have to be
resolved as a part of resolving issues about jurisdiction.
I was not trying to say that all issues of merit would have
to be resolved.