As well, the fact that is is framed as a "license agreement" invokes contract law instead of pure copyright... in the U.S., contract law is different in every state and some even have gap-filling measures which, in a court of law, would add things to the license that even the licensor didn't intend (choice of venue changes this, but choice of venue provisions are about as non-free as it gets).
Joe On 13 Sep 2004 09:22:47 -0400, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raul Miller writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:49:01AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > This is choice of venue; it means that, if the licensor wants, he can > > > force me to trek out to Indiana at whim to defend myself in court, > > > overriding the normal legal mechanisms for choosing a suitable venue. > > > I believe most of d-legal considers this to be non-free; I agree. > > > > Of course, it also means that if Microsoft uses a derivative of this in > > some proprietary component of Windows that the licensor can avoid having > > to trek out to Seattle to contest the issue. > > > > [Personally, I'm more ambivalent about this being a non-free issue > > than you.] > > At least in the case of Microsoft, this is not true. Since Microsoft > does business in every state of the USA and many foreign countries, it > is subject to personal jurisdiction in their local courts. Venue is > satisfied by having an aggrieved party live there or by the alleged > infringement taking place there (other things can probably satisfy the > requirements for proper venue). > > Choice-of-venue, as opposed to choice-of-law, mostly makes it easier > to sue small people. > > Michael Poole > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student http://pobox.com/~joehall/ blog: http://pobox.com/~joehall/nqb2/
