Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jeremy Hankins writes:
>> Yes, but (as you point out in your pine example) that can happen >> regardless of license. There are some things we simply can't protect >> against. > > Indeed, but we can refuse to make it easier for a malicious actor or > more costly for their victims (where those victims become such by > using Debian). We could, but does the DFSG require it? There are other, non-malicious reasons for choice-of-venue, as others have pointed out. >> The argument against choice-of-venue that I've heard is that it might be >> a choice that has strange or restrictive law that heavily favors the >> copyright holder. As far as I know (and I haven't read the whole >> thread) no one's making that argument about California. And to a >> certain extent, a nations laws always are able to remove freedoms that >> free software would like to permit, and there's not a lot we can do >> about it. Let's not tilt at windmills here. > > That would be the argument against choice-of-law clauses. The > argument against choice-of-venue is that any licensor can drag a user > into court in the licensor's preferred venue rather than a venue that > the user would otherwise be subject to. Ah. I assumed (perhaps erroneously) that the choice of venue impacted the choice of law. I take it that the two issues are unrelated? -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
