On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 07:28:46PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > * 99.. MMIISSCCEELLLLAANNEEOOUUSS.. > This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter > hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, > such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it > enforceable. This License shall be governed by the law of the > jurisdiction specified in a notice contained within the Original > Software > (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise), > excluding such jurisdiction's conflict-of-law provisions. Any litigation > relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the > courts located in the jurisdiction and venue specified in a notice > contained within the Original Software, with the losing party > responsible > for costs, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable > attorneys' fees and expenses. The application of the United Nations > Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly > excluded. Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a > contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this > License. You agree that You alone are responsible for compliance with > the > United States export administration regulations (and the export control > laws and regulation of any other countries) when You use, distribute or > otherwise make available any Covered Software. > responsible for claims and damages arising, directly or indirectly, out > of its utilization of rights under this License and You agree to work > with Initial Developer and Contributors to distribute such > responsibility > on an equitable basis. Nothing herein is intended or shall be deemed to > constitute any admission of liability.
My own feeling is that this one is the real problem, and is dependent on how we decide on the choice-of-venue issue, and there is no clear precedent here, altough in the past many have expressed themselves against it. Friendly, Sven Luther
