On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:24:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:58:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> > Well, sure. That said, the QPL is a stock licence, and it may be easier > >> > to get > >> > Trolltech to amend that. > >> > >> INRIA is not distributing OCaml under the stock QPL. They are using a > >> derivation of the QPL, with several changes. > > > > Ah, are they ? Well, please provide backups to your information. > > > > I know that they distribute other part under a modified LGPL, but last time > > i > > checked the QPL part was stock QPL, except the venue issue, naturally. I > > have > > not checked ocaml 3.08 though, and might be wrong. > > No, the venue issue is exactly what I'm talking about.
Well, it only makes sense to change it, as the ocaml author have no interest whatsoever in going to amsterdam. Also, even if the choice of trolltech of the amsterdam court could be viewed with suspision, since trolltech is hardly found in amsterdam, the choice of the ocaml team to chose versaille court, which is their work place, is only logical. Furthermore, as the choice of law is the french law, preliminary information seem to indicate that any procedure should be domiciliated at the domicil of the defendor, which would make this clause illegal and thus void. I am not 100 percent sure if there is some other consideration involved in software licence law (is it the same as contract law ? Since a licence is a contract between the licensor and the licensee ?) or in international handling though. In any case, the choice of this court and this licence clause is only motivated by not having to bother about future problems, which is probably acceptable for debian. Friendly, Sven Luther
