Nathanael Nerode writes: > Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue could be > DFSG-free (see, our opinions are not set in stone), although I still > dislike it; see the bottom of > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00812.html, which > nobody commented on.
Since apparently it requires comment to prevent strange hypotheses from affecting "consensus", let me dispel the fallacy of point #2 from your email: > (2) However, even without such clauses, it's quite easy to use > frivolous lawsuits to do the same amount of damage, thanks to > problems with the US and probably other court systems. (It can be > argued whether or not this is true, but I'll believe it.) Read any complaint filed in a US court. One of the first claims you will find (usually before even the listing of the parties) are those that argue why the court has jurisdiction and venue over the matter. If those claims are missing, the court will refuse to hear the case. If those claims are fraudulent -- for example, they falsely claim the defendant lives in the same state as the plaintiff -- the plaintiff who filed them (or their lawyer) may be liable for contempt of court. Choice of venue clauses compel the defendant to defend himself where the author chooses, and in that upset the normal balance of law. They are a form of discrimination against people who live outside the chosen venue (DFSG#5), in addition to failing the proposed Dictator Test. Michael Poole
