Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Monday 04 January 2010 06:36:26 am Michael Poole wrote:
> Anthony W. Youngman writes:
>
> > In message <[🔎] 20100104123153.65A79F7129@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray
> > <mjr@phonecoop.coop> writes
> >>I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
> >>acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
> >>thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
> >
> > Actually, I believe choice-of-venue is unenforceable in our
> > jurisdiction :-)
>
> That's convenient for you (assuming it's true). I live in Virginia,
> which has enacted a law called UCITA that gives almost unlimited scope
> to shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses; but even without that, US courts
> generally uphold choice-of-venue clauses in software licenses. I hope
> that those situated similarly to me count for something when evaluating
> DFSG compliance -- just going through discovery in one lawsuit venued on
> the far side of the country was more than enough for me. (Setting aside
> the cost of retaining a lawyer in a jurisdiction with slightly different
> laws than I'm familiar with, the three-hour time zone difference made it
> a pain to coordinate things without disrupting my working schedule.
> IMO, software users don't deserve to have far-away lawsuits against them
> made easier.)
Choice of venue clauses are uber complicated in the United States, and UCITA certainly doesn't help. Having said that, if a suit is to be brought it is going to be brought somewhere. With the GPL, which of course has no choice of venue clause, the litigants get to look forward to a series of back-and-forth briefs about the venue before they even get to the merits of the suit... which is just that much more expense. To say nothing of international cases and choice-of-law issues :(
--
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg@probonogeek.org
Reply to: