** David Nusinow :: > If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it. > If the two sides live in different places, one of them has to > travel no matter what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say > that choice of venue clauses aren't Free, then the person bringing > the suit will very likely have to travel and pay the fee (or > that's my interpretation of Humberto and Michael Poole's > responses). If not, then the person defending the suit will have > to pay the fee. Either way, there is a cost involved. Why are we > choosing sides if such a cost can't be avoided?
Because: 1. it's greater the probability that the licensee is poorer than the licensor; 2. the definition of "user" (as in "we care about our users") fits the licensee better than the licensor -- even if it also fits the licensor; and, finally 3. in the case of a fork (fork == GOOD(TM)) people can end up with a license that make BOTH the licensee and the licensor pay some (possibly hefty) cost to litigate the terms of the license. Example of #3 above: I start a (small) companya that distributes a fork of Mozilla -- under MPL1.1 -- , with a lot of improvements. Someone in Argentina forks my fork, and disobeys some of MPL's rules. Now, to prosecute that someone, I have to travel to California -- because I also agreed to the venue of the MPL 1.1. Worse yet, someone in my home town could be the culprit, and I would still have to go California to prosecute him... probably. This does not seem Free Software to me. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
