On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:16:07PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: > 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.
Ah, i was not aware of this, but yes, this is an additional problem. A fixed choice-of-law is perfectly valid, and has been accepted as such in the past, it was only the choice-of-venue to be problematic. > 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? The ideal way would be to reopen the discussion on debian-legal, cross posted to gnu-sol-discuss. Tomorrow though. Friendly, Sven Luther _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
