[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> <posted & mailed> > > Please don't do that; I'm on the list. > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice >> > of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the agreement, >> > and that's what a choice of venue clause tells you (at least, to the >> > point anything is certain in law). >> >> Wrong wrong wrong. Please pay attention. > > I know all of what you say and I stand by the claim. Instead of > flaming, please participate in the debate.
Nathanael's just getting frustrated at having explained this over and over again. A choice of venue clause, however, *doesn't* tell you which laws apply to the agreement. >> Yes, these are different. Courts can, and will, decide cases based on >> foreign laws. If there is no choice-of-venue clause, venue is decided >> (among the possible jurisdictions) mostly by how much of a pain it is for >> the various litigants to travel (the least pain is the best place). > > The word "mostly" is important here. So are you entirely dropping your argument that COV clauses are good because they let you know which laws will apply to the agreement? > Whether or not a choice of venue clause is in the license, the > venues that will be used for all future cases are not completely > determined. Thus, it is difficult to sustain a completely > theoretical view on why these clauses are either preferable or not, > at least insofar as they impact the choice of venue. Whether it's > there or not, you still don't know for sure what venue will be used, > and so how can we prefer one way or the other on principle? I'm not sure I understand your argument. Is it really that nothing is certain, and so acting from ideals is certainly incorrect? > To decide, then, we must fall back on practical issues, and I don't know > if anyone at all on this list is qualified to report on that. Even if > we get an answer to that somehow (and I have suggested that choice of > venue may well be considered more favorable) You've suggested that, but I haven't seen a coherent list of reasons. Can you provide one in one place? >, what does it mean for us? > A mere practical difference in the litigation procedure does not > make something free vs. non-free. Sure it does. Such a difference can be used as a proxy to control modification and distribution, thus making an apparently free license non-free in application. Because of that possibility, and the fact that they compel an agreement from the licensee, COV clauses are non-free. >> We have explained repeatedly that choice of law clauses are great and fine, >> while choice of venue clauses are abusive. > > Excuse me, but I am both a contributor to Debian and a heavy user. You > are in no place to "explain" things to me. I think you need to calm down at least as much as Nathanael. He's in a great place to explain things to you -- that's why he's here, same as the rest of us. > Further, there is no "we", > because other people agree with me. And finally, even if debian-legal > were in full unanimity other than myself, I would still have a full > right to speak up and enter the debate. Well, yes, but you should probably expect to be told you're wrong in that circumstance. A lot. You have the right to an opinion. You don't have the right to smiling nods of approval for publicly espousing a ridiculous opinion. > I wish we did have a real process for deciding the DFSG-freeness of > things, as opposed to loose consensus, because more and more I am seeing > a lack of consensus on debian-legal. Barring that, you will just have > to live with people who disagree with being in your presence. I think it's a very good thing that there isn't a rigorous process here. The error rate of debian-legal is well below the expected error rate of a bureaucracy. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
