Re: NetBeans ITP [was Re: CDDL]

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

Tom Marble <Tom.Marble@Sun.COM> wrote:
> Indeed allow me to appeal to everyone to reconsider CDDL *as is*
> given the clarification that Simon has provided in this regard [1].

In essence, this is the same claim we have heard before:
   "If, however, you are an individual, or a company that trades in only
   one of the places in which the other party also trades, the only
   jurisdiction that can hear the case is the one you share in common
   with the other party. In this circumstance, the "choice of venue"
   clause has no effect - no reasonable court would hear a case involving
   a party with no connection to the court."

So, as I've repeatedly stated before, to accept such a choice of venue as
not being an effective cost, we need to be sure the court is "reasonable".
I've no idea whether Santa Clara County California (SCCC) is "reasonable"
and I'm not going to take Simon's word because:
 1. I suspect it may be in the interest of Sun employees to claim it is
    reasonable even if it is not;
 2. No documentary evidence of SCCC practice is shown (in god we trust,
    all others must bring data);
 3. He writes elsewhere "This is [...] intended as legal advice to no-one."
and more importantly:
 4. "The idea of corporations doing the equivalent of extraordinary
 rendition on the strength of a choice of venue clause is a literalist
 fantasy."

If the US is similar to the UK, copyright infringement is a criminal
act; and the US can extradite corporation chiefs from the UK, using
our terrible Extradition Act 2003.  That is, a corporation "equivalent
of extraordinary rendition" already happens!

When someone shows us evidence detailing how SCCC works in this situation,
I'll believe SCCC is "reasonable" in that way.


There seem to be some bogus justifications in the article, like:
  "The main beneficiary of a "choice of venue" clause in an open source
  license is actually the smaller US business. [...] "
Sun is not a smaller US business, so that paragraph seems irrelevant.

Ultimately, if it has no beneficial effect *for Sun*, why is *Sun*
putting it in their licences?

Also, as mentioned in another post recently, the CDDL discriminates
against support agents of any Contributor, which may prevent CDDL'd work
being free software.

CDDL remains a "check each case carefully" licence.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct