On Sep 7, 2005, at 17:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing that a choice-of-venue of this kind allows is to
facilitate the
licensor to sue random people all over.
No; choice venue means that the licensor can only be sued on his
terms on his home turf. That is because person *suing* has choice
of venue.
So if the licensor wants to sue, he can pick the venue anyway.
If he is *sued*, OTOH, he wants to be able to pick the venue to
better defend himself.
I think that we don't get where you get the idea that the
defendant can pick the venue.
The first step in a lawsuit is the party *suing* finding a court
and filing the suit there.
Quite. I really don't think we're debating the real issue here.
This is not the issue I understood Debian to have with CDDL. I
understood the concern some individuals expressed to be about the fact
that the choice of law and venue was parameterised, allowing a user of
CDDL to select law and venue on a use-by-use basis in a way that might
change the meaning of some terms of the CDDL or work in a way that
rendered the license non-Free.
I would really prefer to see us discuss based on the actual concern, as
raised by the original individual, rather than continuing as we are. I
understand the discussion to have been held in debian-legal; perhaps
Sven could persuade the instigator to visit gnu-sol-discuss and explain
the issue properly?
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
