Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Don Armstrong wrote:
>To underline, the following clauses in the CDDL are problematic:
>
> 9. MISCELLANEOUS
>
> [...]
> 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),
The consensus is that choice-of-law is acceptable (provided it's the
law of a 'reasonable' jurisdiction)....
> excluding such jurisdiction's conflict-of-law provisions.
Haven't heard any opinion about this exclusion....
> 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,
...but this is choice of jurisdiction, and many of us think this is
*not* free. If Sun turned nasty and decided to sue me, I should not have
to hire a *California* lawyer or fly there simply in order to defend
myself. This is the problematic part. Without choice-of-jurisdiction,
I could simply have my lawyer file a reply saying "No alleged
infrigement took place in California, throw this out, you have to file
suit in my home state."
This clause could be used in an acceptable manner, of course: if the
"notice contained within the Original Software" stated that it was in
fact subject to the jurisdiction and venue of whatever court would
normally have jurisdiction, then this clause would really be moot. :-)
> with
> the losing party responsible for costs, including, without
> limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and
> expenses.
Haven't heard much if any comment on this.
> [...]
> You agree that You alone are responsible for compliance with the
> United States export administration regulations (and the export
> control laws and regulation of any other countries) when You use,
> distribute or otherwise make available any Covered Software.
Probably OK. Doesn't cause non-US people to be covered by export
regulations anyway.
>It's not appropriate for a Free Software license to require users of
>software to give up rights that they would normaly have in their own
>jurisdiction.
>
>
>Don Armstrong
Reply to: