On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:40:18AM -0700, Rich Teer wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Debian GNU/OpenSolaris, as it would be called, having a OpenSolaris kernel > > and > > a GNU userland is not concerned by the GPL incompatibility of the CDDL, but > > solely on the non-freeness of the CDDL, which seems to involve right now the > > controversial choice-of-venue clause. At least if you want that effort to be > > part of debian, and not create your own thing apart from it. > > > > Now, my opinion is that the choice-of-venue clause problem should be cut in > > two, and leave the choice-of-venue to the defendant, as seems to be the > > default in international contract law, but it would be nice to have real > > legal > > What is the problem with the choice of venure clause? I honestly don't > understand. > > If I, as a resident of BC, Canada, release some code under the CDDL, the last > thing I want to do is travel to God knows where (e.g., California) to protect > my rights in a court of law. A better example would be Casper, who lives in > the Netherlands. Why can't he, as the author of a piece of CDDL-licensed > code, > chose the venue for lawsuits?
One of the debian mirror operators in <insert random country> can be sued by Sun over the distribution of Debian GNU/OpenSolaris, and have to go to the expense to go to the Sun chosen court. This is, in my opinion, not freedom related, but debian is a volunteer organisation, and can't afford to take such risks either for our infrastructure, our individual developers, our mirror network, debian based distributions, or even the end-user, so it is a problem for debian. Friendly, Sven Luther _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
