On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 02:47:43 +0300 Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: [...] > > Francesco Poli dislikes the choice of law and courts clause, but I > > think it's fine. For the record, I think a choice of law clause is acceptable. On the other hand, I consider a choice of venue clause as a non-free restriction. > > IBM PL v1.0 contains a choice of law clause and it’s listed as > suitable for Debian’s main [...]. It seems to me that the IBM PL v1.0 only includes a choice of law clause and no choice of venue. But discussing that license would take us far away from the issue at hand... > > As for arbitration clause, could anyone explain, what’s the practical > difference between ‘choice of law of N’ and stating that disputes > should be resolved in *general jurisdiction* courts of N? > IMHO, they are effectively the same. As far as I can tell, a choice of law clause only states that any dispute must be litigated following the laws of a pre-selected jurisdiction. On the other hand, a choice of venue clause insists that any dispute be litigated in the courts of a pre-selected country (or even state, region, local area, ...). If a user is sued (say, for copyright infringement) by the copyright holder, that user will be forced to travel possibly long distances in order to defend him/herself. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpGiHbUQXJYw.pgp
Description: PGP signature