Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le jeudi 24 mai 2007 à 10:54 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>> This License shall be governed by the law of the jurisdiction
>> specified in a notice contained within the Original Software
>> (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise),
>> excluding such jurisdiction's conflict-of-law provisions. Any
>> litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the
>> jurisdiction of the courts located in the jurisdiction and venue
>> specified in a notice contained within the Original Software, with
>> the losing party responsible for costs, including, without
>> limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and
> Please stop the choice-of-law bullshit. This clause is moot, we can
> ignore it.
Moot in what venues? I live in a state that has enacted the Uniform
Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), which -- among other
things -- gives effect to choice of venue clauses in shrink-wrap
licenses unless a party can show that the choice is "unreasonable and
unjust". US courts have made that barrier rather high in practice.
I'm not a fan of judging licenses free because Debian thinks certain
clauses are moot. If the clause is in fact moot, the license is
buggy. If the clause is not moot -- at the time of upload or some
point afterwards -- it can cause significant harm.
- http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/ucita/ucita200.htm is a
copy; see section 110.