Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Almost every license on the OSI approved list specifies a US jurisdiction. The OSL is specifically intended to be country neutral in that respect. If it isn't, we should make it so. What changes do you suggest? Simple, leave out references to jurisdiction. The law will operate whether you specify jurisdiction or not. Almost every country specifies that suits for damages should be brought at the place of residence / business of the defendant. You can rarely contract out of that. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Almost every country specifies that suits for damages should be brought at the place of residence / business of the defendant. You can rarely contract out of that. That is exactly what I want to contract out of, and I can in many jurisdictions. Licensors shouldn't be burdened by having to go to courts all over the world where their licensees happen to be. Licensees have the choice of licensors, not the other way around, in open source software situations. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
