[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
>>    expenses.
> 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[1] 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.

Michael Poole

[1]- http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/ucita/ucita200.htm is a
copy; see section 110.

Reply to: