On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:17:06PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:55:24PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Not really interested in the case where you actually did infringe on > > the license. I don't think it's worthwhile to worry about whether we > > discriminate against such people. > > > > Nuisance lawsuits are the canonical example of the important part > > here. That's the scenario where choice-of-venue is bad. > > Ok, thank you for clarifying that. I think we need to consider the point > that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause may be > important for a program author to successfully defend their copyright. If > the justification for this is to be grounded in the discrimination clause > of the DFSG, we can't choose to discriminate against the program's authors. > If this is to be grounded in the clause about not requiring a fee, we can't > require that the program's author be forced to take on the burden of such a > fee if they need to defend their copyright.
Notice that the CDDL says : with the losing party responsible for costs, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses how does that modify our acceptance of the choice-of-venue ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
