That is not totally correct. First, choice of venue clauses are, as a
rule, totally legal.
In all countries? Do you have any reference for that?
Second, the judgement won't be directly
enforceable in other countries, but in non-controversial cases (by
controversial, I'm thinking Yahoo! and the like), it is quite easy to
get a judgement called (in Europe anyway) an exequatur which renders a foreign
judgement enforceable. So let's not dismiss such a clause as ineffective.
I am not a lawyer and I wonder if this totally exact. Anyway even if you
are right this will be confirmed by the foreign tribunal and if the
issue is not controversial it is normal that you will condemned. In the
specific case of the Adobe license, which basically let you do anything
you want, I do not see how you can non controversially break the contract.
olive> Anyway even without this choice of venue, I do not see anything
olive> preventing Adobe from suing someone in an U.S. tribunal; so the argument
olive> is in my opinion fundamentally flawed.
Now I agree with you on the fact that these clauses aren't all that
problematic.
Sure. In any case in case of a lawsuit; the cost of the lawyer will be
infinitively more than the cost of the travel. The fact of being sued is
terribly annoying; the choice of venue appear to be negligible.
Debian legal has a tendency to declare non-free a lot of license while
all other declare them free or open source (the open source movement has
basically the same rule as Debian). The same people then say that "is
obvious by the DFSG" or that "anybody know that is non-free". Debian
will lose its credibility if it goes on this way. It should focus on
proprietary software and not on software which are free but have a
license that is not exactly the ideal one. Both the FSF and the open
source movement have understood this.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
