MJ Ray wrote: <snip> > Unfortunately, FSF is mostly a black box to outsiders like me. To almost everyone.
> I have > asked them questions sometimes, but the answers so far have been slow, > incomplete and/or cautious first-line responses, rather than involving > any words from the decision-makers. This has been a problem I've had > with FSF, Inc for a long time. We all know that they have good lawyers > involved, but I can't figure out the reasoning myself and the people > who have answered questions fully get offended that you even ask the > question. The Europeans are more accessible, but seem not to want to > duplicate the US FSF licensing team, so I don't have any official > channel for questions there. > Further, if FSF front-line volunteers connect a request with anything > sent to this list, I get bloody suspicious questions back and I think > it gets tagged as "low priority, answer before next ice age". Why > can't you all get over stuff and take each case as it comes? Learn > from it, but get over it. Gah!</rant> Indeed. <snip> >> I suspect that one of the major objections to choice of venue clauses >> (as opposed to choice of law clauses) is that they place more of a >> burden on those being sued. [...] > > Is this hindering cost-free distribution by being able to demand > payment to represent the licensee in that venue? Or do we regard this > as discrimination by denying foreign defendants the right to be heard > in a local court using their residency's law and language, as normally > would happen? Both? <snip> -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
