Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > interface is enough to stop any derivative-work-contagion, so we are back to > the lone choice of venue thingy, and its rather feeble argumentation on > debian-legal, full of chinese dissidents and desert islands :)
> The only sane solution and the one i believe is default in international law > is choice of venue to be the defendants court, either zwhere he is based or > makes business. I'm confused about your opinion here. On one hand you seem to feel that it is OK freedom-wise for a license to have a choice-of-venue clause stipulating that the licensee must appear in the licensor's home court in any suit about the software, even when the licensee is the defendant. On the other hand you say that the only sane solution is to let the default rules prevail and have the case take place in the defendant's home court. These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license can be "free" with a venue choice that you do not consider "sane"), so I must have misunderstood one of them. Could you elaborate, please? -- Henning Makholm "First chapter, the plot advances, second chapter, Ayla makes a discovery that significantly enhances Palaeolithic technology, third chapter, Ayla has sex with someone, and repeat ad infinitum." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]