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

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 04:51:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to
> > say "if you use my software in a way that I didn't want you to, I'll sue
> > you in a court that works by a set of rules that I'm actually
> > comfortable with". You know, it makes fighting those who do not follow
> > your license the way you intended them to quite a bit easier.
> That's a strawman.  The objection raised to choice-of-venue clauses is not
> what they specify to happen when the licensee has *infringed* the license,
> it's what they specify to happen when the licensee *hasn't* infringed the
> license but the copyright holder files a lawsuit against them anyway out of
> malice.

I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia
for not complying with debootstrap's license, and they find that you've
infringed the license, it doesn't really matter if I'm doing that out
of maliciousness or a genuine. And as far as the actual effects go,
I'm not sure you're going to be any better off without that clause in
your license: if you set foot in Australia, with an Australian judgement
against you, there's a good chance of it being enforced; and if you don't,
there seems to be a practical possibility of your extradition anyway,
based on [0].

Simon Phipps' argument, presented at debconf last year, is (aiui) that
the clause only comes into play when both parties are organisations
that cross multiple jurisdictions anyway -- in which case they're both
presumed to have a presence in the given jurisdiction anyway, and could
reasonably be expected to be following its rules, afaics.

[0] http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/05/06/1178390140855.html


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: