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

Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence



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: pgpt0phHfhBdu.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: