Re: help with the lawyers?
Tempest in a teapot. The Federal Government is rarely held to state laws under diversity under the Erie Doctrine. The probability of the Fed being held to NYS law is minimal to nil. Second the Arbitration clause is permitted under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. Under that act every Federal Govt entity was required to adopt a policy for ADR. On Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:31:36 PM UTC-4, rcg wrote: > > Hello; > > Developing web site for government using Clojure on back end- lawyers > reviewing EPL had objections. Would appreciate any advice on how to deal > with them. > > Again- web site, not distributing or modifying Clojure. I have no > expertise with Open Source Licenses or lawyer-ese jargon. > > These are the specific objections- do they even apply in the context of > web services? > > 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Not > acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state law. > > 2. "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any > resulting litigation". Not acceptable: Only DOJ can control litigation. > > > THANKS!! > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
When dealing with lawyers, I find it best to keep things simple: Is there no other project in the entire federal government developed with Eclipse or some other EPL licensed code? Somehow, I find that hard to believe. On Friday, May 30, 2014 at 6:31, rcg wrote: > Hello; > > Developing web site for government using Clojure on back end- lawyers > reviewing EPL had objections. Would appreciate any advice on how to deal with > them. > > Again- web site, not distributing or modifying Clojure. I have no expertise > with Open Source Licenses or lawyer-ese jargon. > > These are the specific objections- do they even apply in the context of web > services? > > 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Not > acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state law. > > 2. "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting > litigation". Not acceptable: Only DOJ can control litigation. > > > > > > > THANKS!! > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > (mailto:clojure@googlegroups.com) > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > (mailto:clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com) > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > (mailto:clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com). > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
This might be a good place to start: http://dodcio.defense.gov/OpenSourceSoftwareFAQ.aspx and in particular this section: http://dodcio.defense.gov/OpenSourceSoftwareFAQ.aspx#OSS_Licenses and this section: http://dodcio.defense.gov/OpenSourceSoftwareFAQ.aspx#Using_OSS_in_DoD_systems Having worked at a company (Adobe) that conducts audits of licenses used by software components upon which it builds even internal systems, I sympathize with your plight. To us mere mortals who develop software for a living, the machinations of lawyers are bewildering but - unfortunately - important in protecting those who write the software... Sean On May 29, 2014, at 8:31 PM, rcg wrote: > Developing web site for government using Clojure on back end- lawyers > reviewing EPL had objections. Would appreciate any advice on how to deal with > them. > > Again- web site, not distributing or modifying Clojure. I have no expertise > with Open Source Licenses or lawyer-ese jargon. > > These are the specific objections- do they even apply in the context of web > services? > > 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Not > acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state law. > 2. "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting > litigation". Not acceptable: Only DOJ can control litigation. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: help with the lawyers?
Hi, I am from Canada but my two cents (or 200$ given the size of this email) I reviewed and signed about 2 dozen contracts in the last 25 years. Some from 50.000 up to milion dollars (ok the canadian dollar was not always on par with the US dollar :)). On both sides of the border, some with US corporations, more with Canadian businesses. Rarely needed a lawyer after the first two contracts. I agree our lawyers in Canada might not be all arrogant bastards but I met some sitting on the other side of the table that were arrogant enough to warrant a couple of punches. Objection 1: This would be a civil litigation if any starts. Any civil contract needs to be resolved somehow against a set of laws. It's perfectly normal to mention against which set of laws a litigation is to be argued over. In this specific case it's too bad but the Eula cannot be granted to accommodate every geographic location. The jurisdiction is always specified (including I remember once the state of NY). It's normal business conduct. In a civil contract you can even agree to an arbitration process which is not based on a court. The arbitration mechanism (whom and where) will be specified and you are binded by this. If arbitration occurs not in your favor, good luck trying to overturn this in court if it had been sighed in good faith. Objection 2: Not true. Read a. It's not a criminal offense to breach a civil contract, in Canada it has nothing to do with federal courts upfront. It runs through lower courts first and escalate to upper if justified (if a civil law itself is challenged, not the case itself). I suspect that a civil suit would start in a state court or lower court in the US and then eventually escalate. DOJ has nothing to do it except if you breach a law which then results in a criminal offense. I even saw contracts were the other party was requiring us to abdicate the right to invoke specific civil right laws or portion of it. Never signed these ones or got these clauses removed. It's not illegal here but once signed it's a lot of trouble to overturn. A contract breach does not always result in a law suit. There are many steps in the escalation process. 3) General appreciation of lawyers in the context of software contracts Remember, lawyers, especially newbies, does not grasp the reality of businesses in many cases. The field of practice also influences the output. I saw lawyers specialized with penal trials flunk in simple civil trials. I even had a lawyer counseling one my customers to impose us not to reuse any ideas patentable or not in any future contracts with any one else including businesses in other domains. That was a total invention with no legal basis in Canada. My reply to this customer was that he had to buy us then and put our brains in some liquid or freeze them for later use after the job was done. We would not sign this. He agreed that this was abusive and removed it from the contract. His lawyer firm is the biggest and meanest in Canada having several offices across Canada and above 1000 lawyers. Obviously not a guarantee of best judgement Software to most lawyers is an alien thing. If you end up with a lawyer having no experience with this, your best bet is to demonstrate with real life scenarios how unrealistic his approach his. In front of the buyer obvisouly, not behind closed doors. Here he's obviously confusing source code modifications with plain runtime usage and he's making up horror movies in his mind. If you do not challenge him with real evidence, you will not make any progress. Do not hesitate stepping in his domain expertise and challenging him about other cases that you may find. The Eclipse stuff here is a great example. By forcing him to explain why this real life cases is ok and not yours, you will most probably debunk is made up horror stories. He may even learn something along the way. Fight back with common practices to counter is arguments. Ask him how he would resolve a litigation and explain why the jurisdiction choice would impact it ? Some lawyers are pragmatic others not. Any business deal is a pragmatic compromise, if a business deal is a win-loose you should walk away if you would become the looser. Bring him on the grounds of reality. Then it should be easy to shot him in flames if he's making up a story to "look professional". The scenarios will look so unrealistic that people will laugh around the table except him. P.s.: show no mercy, after the deal his done there's a 99.999% probability that you will never seem him again assuming your did your end of the job correctly. Make yourself some fun out of this :) Eating a few lawyers or DBAs in your cereals at breakfast time is good way to start the day :) (Billy Idol, White wedding playing in my brain as I type) Luc P. > Hello; > > Developing web site for government using Clojure on back end- lawyers > reviewing EPL had objections. Would appr
Re: help with the lawyers?
thanks! that seems a promising route- appreciate all the thoughtful discussion here On Friday, May 30, 2014 3:38:14 AM UTC-10, James Reeves wrote: > > I'd suggest contacting the Eclipse Foundation directly and getting their > opinion. They'd probably be interested in any decision that bans EPL-based > software from being used in the federal government. > > - James > > > On 30 May 2014 04:31, rcg > wrote: > >> Hello; >> >> Developing web site for government using Clojure on back end- lawyers >> reviewing EPL had objections. Would appreciate any advice on how to deal >> with them. >> >> Again- web site, not distributing or modifying Clojure. I have no >> expertise with Open Source Licenses or lawyer-ese jargon. >> >> These are the specific objections- do they even apply in the context of >> web services? >> >> 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". >> Not acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state >> law. >> >> 2. "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any >> resulting litigation". Not acceptable: Only DOJ can control litigation. >> >> >> THANKS!! >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com >> >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >> your first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Clojure" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to clojure+u...@googlegroups.com . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: > >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Gregg Reynolds >>> wrote: >>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: > > > Define rational. To me, it looks like absence of a choice of law clause means I have no idea where I might end up in case of litigation. Name your favorite corrupt legal system here. With a choice of law clause at least you can be somewhat confident that the contract can be enforced under some semblance of the rule of law. >>> >>> >>> Are you saying the corrupt judges of the corrupt legal system will act >>> differently just because you have chosen a license with a choice of law >>> clause that's referring to the law in effect at other side of the planet? >>> >> >> Oh good grief don't be ridiculous. I'm saying pick the jurisdiction you >> think most likely to deliver lawful governance. I don't care which side of >> the planet or which planet. >> > > What I meant to say, is "good grief, don't be ridiculous - I've got that > covered. Tough job, but somebody's got to do it!" > But do you realize that you could have said "good grief! - I've got that covered..." and it would have been a civil response? I thought your claim was ridiculous, but I chose to turn it into a question instead of launching an ad hominem. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kind Regards, Atamert Ölçgen -+- --+ +++ www.muhuk.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Gregg Reynolds >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: >>> Define rational. To me, it looks like absence of a choice of law >>> clause means I have no idea where I might end up in case of litigation. >>> Name your favorite corrupt legal system here. With a choice of law clause >>> at least you can be somewhat confident that the contract can be enforced >>> under some semblance of the rule of law. >>> >> >> >> Are you saying the corrupt judges of the corrupt legal system will act >> differently just because you have chosen a license with a choice of law >> clause that's referring to the law in effect at other side of the planet? >> > > Oh good grief don't be ridiculous. I'm saying pick the jurisdiction you > think most likely to deliver lawful governance. I don't care which side of > the planet or which planet. > What I meant to say, is "good grief, don't be ridiculous - I've got that covered. Tough job, but somebody's got to do it!" -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: help with the lawyers?
Actually, you're involvement has been very useful, because it sort of demonstrates my main concerns. Choice of law clauses are complicated and no one is really very sure what they mean. It's rather like a "non-commercial" clause that you often seen in creative commons material. It is my main problem with this language in EPL. I wish Clojure used a clearer licence; it's one area, for example, where Scala is far simpler. But we are where we are, and I guess another licence discussion on this mailing list is not going to change that. Phil From: clojure@googlegroups.com [clojure@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Gregg Reynolds [d...@mobileink.com] Sent: 30 May 2014 17:13 To: clojure@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: help with the lawyers? On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Phillip Lord mailto:phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk>> wrote: Gregg Reynolds mailto:d...@mobileink.com>> writes: >> Are you saying the corrupt judges of the corrupt legal system will act >> differently just because you have chosen a license with a choice of law >> clause that's referring to the law in effect at other side of the planet? >> > > Oh good grief don't be ridiculous. I'm saying pick the jurisdiction you > think most likely to deliver lawful governance. I don't care which side of > the planet or which planet. No, he is correct. You pick a jurisdiction by being in it. I clearly did not have enough coffee this morning. Choice of law != choice of venue. But I suspect the point holds, which is just that there are tradeoffs involved - omitting a choice of law clause just gives you a different set of potential headaches. I think I'll stop now. heh. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: > Gregg Reynolds writes: > > >> Are you saying the corrupt judges of the corrupt legal system will act > >> differently just because you have chosen a license with a choice of law > >> clause that's referring to the law in effect at other side of the > planet? > >> > > > > Oh good grief don't be ridiculous. I'm saying pick the jurisdiction you > > think most likely to deliver lawful governance. I don't care which side > of > > the planet or which planet. > > No, he is correct. You pick a jurisdiction by being in it. I clearly did not have enough coffee this morning. Choice of law != choice of venue. But I suspect the point holds, which is just that there are tradeoffs involved - omitting a choice of law clause just gives you a different set of potential headaches. I think I'll stop now. heh. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: > Gregg Reynolds writes: > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Phillip Lord < > phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> Well, the law determines which part of a contract are actually binding; > >> so whether the choice of law clause actually means anything at all, > >> depends on the jurisdiction in which the law is being judged. Having > >> said this, I think your lawyers are right. The choice of law clause is > >> generally horrible. > > > > > > I guess you mean "choice of jurisdiction"? It may be horrible, but > (IANL) > > a contract without a jurisdiction seems pretty useless. > > So, GPL and most software licenses are completely useless? > Creative Commons Licenses are completely useless? > A statement such as "Copyright 2014" is completely useless? > Busted! > > > In any case, if not NY, then where? > > The UK. That's where I live, and that would make it easier for me. Any > objections? > Lemme talk to my lawyer. I'll let you know. -gregg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
Gregg Reynolds writes: >> Are you saying the corrupt judges of the corrupt legal system will act >> differently just because you have chosen a license with a choice of law >> clause that's referring to the law in effect at other side of the planet? >> > > Oh good grief don't be ridiculous. I'm saying pick the jurisdiction you > think most likely to deliver lawful governance. I don't care which side of > the planet or which planet. No, he is correct. You pick a jurisdiction by being in it. Phil -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
Gregg Reynolds writes: >>> It reduces the freedom of people in other jurisdictions. These people, >>> theoretically, could become subject to an alien legal system over which >>> they have no control, no knowledge, and no access to lawyers versed in >>> it. This is a disincentive to use software restricted in this fashion. >> >> >> So it seems, for non-US citizens, choosing a license that doesn't contain >> a choice of law clause is the rational way to go. >> > > Define rational. To me, it looks like absence of a choice of law clause > means I have no idea where I might end up in case of litigation. You can end up in litigation in any jurisdiction in which you operate, with or without a choice of law clause. If I decide to sue you in Germany, you cannot hold up a contract and say "no, it has to be in NY". If the clause really did mean that, then it would be utterly objectionable. If you do not want to be subject to the law of a jurisdiction do not operate it in. There is no contract which you can possibly write which means that you are not subject to the law where you are. > Name your favorite corrupt legal system here. With a choice of law > clause at least you can be somewhat confident that the contract can be > enforced under some semblance of the rule of law. This makes no sense, again. If I sue you in a legal system which is corrupt, I could just bribe them to ignore the choice of law clause. Phil -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
Gregg Reynolds writes: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Phillip Lord > wrote: > >> >> Well, the law determines which part of a contract are actually binding; >> so whether the choice of law clause actually means anything at all, >> depends on the jurisdiction in which the law is being judged. Having >> said this, I think your lawyers are right. The choice of law clause is >> generally horrible. > > > I guess you mean "choice of jurisdiction"? It may be horrible, but (IANL) > a contract without a jurisdiction seems pretty useless. So, GPL and most software licenses are completely useless? Creative Commons Licenses are completely useless? A statement such as "Copyright 2014" is completely useless? Most legal systems are based on reading what the contract says and then interpreting this, according to some standard defined by a legal system and (and this is the important bit) by normal language. It's not like a program where the interpretation is entirely codified in the language specification. So, it's entirely possible to make a contract without reference to a legal system under which it is interpreted. Of course, if you use terms that DO have a precise legal meaning that you are open to trouble; so, for example, if you start talking about "fair use exception to copyright" then that might be difficult, as there is no fair use exception under, for example, British law. > In any case, if not NY, then where? The UK. That's where I live, and that would make it easier for me. Any objections? Phil -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: > >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Define rational. To me, it looks like absence of a choice of law clause >> means I have no idea where I might end up in case of litigation. Name your >> favorite corrupt legal system here. With a choice of law clause at least >> you can be somewhat confident that the contract can be enforced under some >> semblance of the rule of law. >> > > > Are you saying the corrupt judges of the corrupt legal system will act > differently just because you have chosen a license with a choice of law > clause that's referring to the law in effect at other side of the planet? > Oh good grief don't be ridiculous. I'm saying pick the jurisdiction you think most likely to deliver lawful governance. I don't care which side of the planet or which planet. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Gregg Reynolds >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Atamert Ölçgen >>> wrote: >>> This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and the > intellectual property laws of the United States of America. This is a very peculiar clause for me. I have just checked GPL text and it doesn't contain anything like that. I'll look into this further later, but at this point I'm concerned by a license that is in a way limited to a geographical location. A location which I don't live. The web never lies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7232485 >>> >> >> I don't know what I'm supposed to learn from that thread. >> > > NY (or London or ?) as world standard for international commerce. > > >> But clicking through I have arrived here: >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2009-08/msg00062.html >> >> I don't see why choice of law clauses would necessarily be additional restrictions. To me, it seems they are more like definitions. They are telling you that the meaning of the license is interpreted under a particular established law. If the license, when interpreted under that law, does not impose any additional restrictions, why couldn't it be GPL compatible? >>> >>> It reduces the freedom of people in other jurisdictions. These people, >>> theoretically, could become subject to an alien legal system over which >>> they have no control, no knowledge, and no access to lawyers versed in >>> it. This is a disincentive to use software restricted in this fashion. >> >> >> So it seems, for non-US citizens, choosing a license that doesn't contain >> a choice of law clause is the rational way to go. >> > > Define rational. To me, it looks like absence of a choice of law clause > means I have no idea where I might end up in case of litigation. Name your > favorite corrupt legal system here. With a choice of law clause at least > you can be somewhat confident that the contract can be enforced under some > semblance of the rule of law. > Are you saying the corrupt judges of the corrupt legal system will act differently just because you have chosen a license with a choice of law clause that's referring to the law in effect at other side of the planet? > > -g > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kind Regards, Atamert Ölçgen -+- --+ +++ www.muhuk.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
I'd suggest contacting the Eclipse Foundation directly and getting their opinion. They'd probably be interested in any decision that bans EPL-based software from being used in the federal government. - James On 30 May 2014 04:31, rcg wrote: > Hello; > > Developing web site for government using Clojure on back end- lawyers > reviewing EPL had objections. Would appreciate any advice on how to deal > with them. > > Again- web site, not distributing or modifying Clojure. I have no > expertise with Open Source Licenses or lawyer-ese jargon. > > These are the specific objections- do they even apply in the context of > web services? > > 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Not > acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state law. > > 2. "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any > resulting litigation". Not acceptable: Only DOJ can control litigation. > > > THANKS!! > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: > >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: >> >>> This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and the intellectual property laws of the United States of America. >>> >>> >>> This is a very peculiar clause for me. I have just checked GPL text and >>> it doesn't contain anything like that. I'll look into this further later, >>> but at this point I'm concerned by a license that is in a way limited to a >>> geographical location. A location which I don't live. >>> >>> The web never lies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7232485 >> > > I don't know what I'm supposed to learn from that thread. > NY (or London or ?) as world standard for international commerce. > But clicking through I have arrived here: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2009-08/msg00062.html > > I don't see why choice of law clauses would necessarily be additional >>> restrictions. To me, it seems they are more like definitions. They are >>> telling you that the meaning of the license is interpreted under a >>> particular established law. If the license, when interpreted under that >>> law, does not impose any additional restrictions, why couldn't it be GPL >>> compatible? >> >> It reduces the freedom of people in other jurisdictions. These people, >> theoretically, could become subject to an alien legal system over which >> they have no control, no knowledge, and no access to lawyers versed in >> it. This is a disincentive to use software restricted in this fashion. > > > So it seems, for non-US citizens, choosing a license that doesn't contain > a choice of law clause is the rational way to go. > Define rational. To me, it looks like absence of a choice of law clause means I have no idea where I might end up in case of litigation. Name your favorite corrupt legal system here. With a choice of law clause at least you can be somewhat confident that the contract can be enforced under some semblance of the rule of law. -g -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: > >> This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and the >>> intellectual property laws of the United States of America. >> >> >> This is a very peculiar clause for me. I have just checked GPL text and >> it doesn't contain anything like that. I'll look into this further later, >> but at this point I'm concerned by a license that is in a way limited to a >> geographical location. A location which I don't live. >> >> The web never lies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7232485 > I don't know what I'm supposed to learn from that thread. But clicking through I have arrived here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2009-08/msg00062.html I don't see why choice of law clauses would necessarily be additional >> restrictions. To me, it seems they are more like definitions. They are >> telling you that the meaning of the license is interpreted under a >> particular established law. If the license, when interpreted under that >> law, does not impose any additional restrictions, why couldn't it be GPL >> compatible? > > It reduces the freedom of people in other jurisdictions. These people, > theoretically, could become subject to an alien legal system over which > they have no control, no knowledge, and no access to lawyers versed in > it. This is a disincentive to use software restricted in this fashion. So it seems, for non-US citizens, choosing a license that doesn't contain a choice of law clause is the rational way to go. In fact I'm probably going to change one of my library's license to GPL tomorrow. It's easier to switch to a more liberal license than the other way around. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kind Regards, Atamert Ölçgen -+- --+ +++ www.muhuk.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Atamert Ölçgen wrote: > This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and the >> intellectual property laws of the United States of America. > > > This is a very peculiar clause for me. I have just checked GPL text and it > doesn't contain anything like that. I'll look into this further later, but > at this point I'm concerned by a license that is in a way limited to a > geographical location. A location which I don't live. > > The web never lies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7232485 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: > > Well, the law determines which part of a contract are actually binding; > so whether the choice of law clause actually means anything at all, > depends on the jurisdiction in which the law is being judged. Having > said this, I think your lawyers are right. The choice of law clause is > generally horrible. I guess you mean "choice of jurisdiction"? It may be horrible, but (IANL) a contract without a jurisdiction seems pretty useless. And I'm guessing that the federal gov't is not in the business of enforcing contract - that's a matter for states and/or more local jurisdictions. Just a guess. In any case, if not NY, then where? Op said: 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Not acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state law. That sounds patently absurd (so its probably true). Surely it happens all the time, since federal law cannot possibly cover everything. I'm pretty sure federal agents must obey local traffic laws. And I doubt that the feds get a pass on code when they contract with somebody to construct a building in Chicago - local inspectors get to decide if the plumbing is hunky-dory. I'm guessing the lawyer involved is trying to prove his/her worth, which, for a lawyer, means finding problems. -Gregg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
Well, the law determines which part of a contract are actually binding; so whether the choice of law clause actually means anything at all, depends on the jurisdiction in which the law is being judged. Having said this, I think your lawyers are right. The choice of law clause is generally horrible. I mean, what does it mean for me, as a non-US citizen? Don't know at all, and that is not good in a legal document. But what I would ask, in this context, is under what circumstances is your website likely to be affected by the license of Clojure? You are not planning to modify or change Clojure itself, but simply use it. Perhaps, these are grounds to argue that the clauses in EPL are very low risk. Phil rcg writes: > Again- web site, not distributing or modifying Clojure. I have no expertise > with Open Source Licenses or lawyer-ese jargon. > > These are the specific objections- do they even apply in the context of web > services? > > 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Not > acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state law. > > 2. "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any > resulting litigation". Not acceptable: Only DOJ can control litigation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
I'm not in any sort of legal conflict here- I think mainly just looking for ways to respond to the lawyer's opinion, perhaps others have come across similar objections to the EPL. I can sort of see why the DoD wouldn't like a license that indicated the Fed govt would be governed by state laws. Maybe this isn't the right forum for this (not a Clojure specific problem but rather a problem with the EPL that Clojure uses). On Thursday, May 29, 2014 7:21:31 PM UTC-10, Marcus Blankenship wrote: > > Dude, you need a lawyer to answer these questions. No one here in their > right mind will give legal advice, at least not this way. > > > On May 29, 2014, at 8:31 PM, rcg > > wrote: > > Hello; > > Developing web site for government using Clojure on back end- lawyers > reviewing EPL had objections. Would appreciate any advice on how to deal > with them. > > Again- web site, not distributing or modifying Clojure. I have no > expertise with Open Source Licenses or lawyer-ese jargon. > > These are the specific objections- do they even apply in the context of > web services? > > 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Not > acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state law. > > 2. "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any > resulting litigation". Not acceptable: Only DOJ can control litigation. > > > THANKS!! > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+u...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+u...@googlegroups.com . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > Best, > Marcus > > Marcus Blankenship > \\\ Problem Solver, Linear Thinker > \\\ 541.805.2736 \ @justzeros \ skype:marcuscreo > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
that is a good point... however this lawyer's opinion seems to be holding weight in this particular situation, just hoping to find out how others have dealt with these sorts of objections On Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:37:17 PM UTC-10, Zach Oakes wrote: > > Eclipse itself is as common as oxygen in the federal government, so I am > pretty sure their worries aren't valid. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
help with the lawyers?
Eclipse itself is as common as oxygen in the federal government, so I am pretty sure their worries aren't valid. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
> > This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and the > intellectual property laws of the United States of America. This is a very peculiar clause for me. I have just checked GPL text and it doesn't contain anything like that. I'll look into this further later, but at this point I'm concerned by a license that is in a way limited to a geographical location. A location which I don't live. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Marcus Blankenship wrote: > Dude, you need a lawyer to answer these questions. No one here in their > right mind will give legal advice, at least not this way. > > > On May 29, 2014, at 8:31 PM, rcg wrote: > > Hello; > > Developing web site for government using Clojure on back end- lawyers > reviewing EPL had objections. Would appreciate any advice on how to deal > with them. > > Again- web site, not distributing or modifying Clojure. I have no > expertise with Open Source Licenses or lawyer-ese jargon. > > These are the specific objections- do they even apply in the context of > web services? > > 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Not > acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state law. > > 2. "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any > resulting litigation". Not acceptable: Only DOJ can control litigation. > > > THANKS!! > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > Best, > Marcus > > Marcus Blankenship > \\\ Problem Solver, Linear Thinker > \\\ 541.805.2736 \ @justzeros \ skype:marcuscreo > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kind Regards, Atamert Ölçgen -+- --+ +++ www.muhuk.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: help with the lawyers?
Dude, you need a lawyer to answer these questions. No one here in their right mind will give legal advice, at least not this way. On May 29, 2014, at 8:31 PM, rcg wrote: > Hello; > > Developing web site for government using Clojure on back end- lawyers > reviewing EPL had objections. Would appreciate any advice on how to deal with > them. > > Again- web site, not distributing or modifying Clojure. I have no expertise > with Open Source Licenses or lawyer-ese jargon. > > These are the specific objections- do they even apply in the context of web > services? > > 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Not > acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state law. > 2. "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting > litigation". Not acceptable: Only DOJ can control litigation. > > THANKS!! > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Best, Marcus Marcus Blankenship \\\ Problem Solver, Linear Thinker \\\ 541.805.2736 \ @justzeros \ skype:marcuscreo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
help with the lawyers?
Hello; Developing web site for government using Clojure on back end- lawyers reviewing EPL had objections. Would appreciate any advice on how to deal with them. Again- web site, not distributing or modifying Clojure. I have no expertise with Open Source Licenses or lawyer-ese jargon. These are the specific objections- do they even apply in the context of web services? 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Not acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state law. 2. "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation". Not acceptable: Only DOJ can control litigation. THANKS!! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
