On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:41:57AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > >Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux > >kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin > >myself > >in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and > >powerfull have the right to get their licence respected, isn't it ? > > Are you not aware that SCO is being sued in Germany and Australia? > > Despite being a US-based company, SCO has a physical presence (i.e. > personal jurisdiction) in every country where it has an office, and > arguably in every location where it either sells its "software"[0]
Well, did you heard the case where, i think it was california, decided that it could sue people all over the world ? > Similarly, did you follow the Microsoft vs. Lindo*s issue? Microsoft > sued in US courts, failed to get an injunction, then "venue shopped" for > a court that would give them the ruling they wanted, ending up in the > Netherlands. If Lindo*s could have argued that venue was improper > because both companies are US companies, don't you think they would have? Sure, but all of those are big companies, i am just a lone developer, i wouldn't even know where to look if SCO or Microsoft where to steal my code and be irrespectuous of the licence. And since i contributed some (very small) amount of linux source code, at least i could be suing SCO for not respecting the GPL, could i not, like IBM is doing ? Now if i could go to tribunal here and fill the suing, this would be well more costly, _and_ i would have much more faith in the impartiality of the judge, given the bad example of money-dominated courts you see in the US. But i don't really care, this clause has been dropped from the ocaml licence, so it doesn't affect me at all. Friendly, Sven Luther