> Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 7/22/05, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > The biggest CDDL problem is that it includes a > "choice-of-venue": > > > > > > «The problem with choice of venue clauses is that > anyone who accepts > > > the license must also accept the burden of > defending themselves > > > against charges of license violation in a court > which is likely to > > > have an implicit bias in favor of the copyright > holder» ... > >
Well, i have been myself in trouble over this lone point, as one of my package (ocaml) was partly under the QPL and thus had a choice of venue clause. I personally don't agree about this one point, and there was some unconvincing discussion (err, rather overlong flamewar) about this point, and i personally souhgt (unofficially though) legal advice about the issue. It seems that choice of venue may be moot anway, as the court chosen in those cases is usually the one of the defendant. IANAL, but i belive this makes sense, or anyone could sue anyone anywhere with no chance for the defendant to defend itself, and i am particularly uneasy with any licence which implies that i could be sued in the US, where the justice is known to be more interested to favor those with money than serving real justice :). Furthermore this seems the most fair stuff, as it place the weight of the one suing equally among all sides, be it author or user. > Don't trust single persons on the Debian mailing > lists..... > Debian accepts the CDDL as a free license. Ah, so we should not thrust a debian developper about this, but accept your words unquestioningly ? Can you provide an URL where this acceptance from debian can be seen ? Friendly, Sven Luther (Wearing my debian hat today :) This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
