Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Also, could someone explain how this sort of condition would work in > > practice? Suppose I'm the licensee. The licensor would go to court in > > Santa Clara County and say what, exactly? I haven't signed anything, > > so how would the licensor convince the court that I have agreed to be > > sued there? > You haven't been granted any rights except under the agreement, so if you > didn't agree, you don't get any of the rights in the agreement. Much like > the way the GPL is enforced.
As I understand it, the GPL isn't an agreement; it's a permission. The licensor might sue for copyright infringement, and the licensee might produce the GPL as evidence in their defence. Or they might not; they might use a difference defence. I may or may have been granted rights other than under the agreement. I may or may require any rights. That's for the court to decide. Which court? > > If the court is willing to take the licensor's word for > > it, then couldn't the licensor sue me in Santa Clara even if I had > > never had anything to do with the software? > > Yes, but you could then tell them and the court that they had to move the > suit to where you lived. With this clause, you couldn't (unless the clause > was ruled to be unenforcable). This is circular. A court has to decide from the facts of the case whether the clause is "enforceable". Which court decides that? That depends on whether the clause is "enforceable". So where do we start?
