From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>
To: Philip McGrath <philip@philipmcgrath.com>,
Guix Devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>
Cc: "(" <paren@disroot.org>
Subject: Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 19:13:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5a9202b00b6eabfe3a065d86ca4ccb9044ecbad3.camel@telenet.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a936625d-500b-5112-e77e-28d0b4b608dd@philipmcgrath.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3196 bytes --]
(zimoun pointed out that I didn't actually send this mail, apparently
it never left ‘drafts’. Anyway, just sending this e-mail for
completeness; unless someone comes with a new insight or something the
discussion appears to be done for now.)
Philip McGrath schreef op do 16-06-2022 om 02:21 [-0400]:
> Still, I'm in favor of the status quo. I think fragmentation over
> license policies has a significant cost for the community, and this
> does not seem to be sufficiently problematic to be worth a schism.
Maybe, but I'm not aware of any method to revise the decisions of the
FSF.
Philip McGrath schreef op do 16-06-2022 om 02:21 [-0400]:
> I'm not a lawyer, so take this paragraph lease seriously, but I also
> think the concrete impact is less than it might first seem. We accept
> choice-of-forum provisions like the one in MPL-2.0 ("Any litigation
> relating to this License may be brought only in the courts of a
> jurisdiction where the defendant maintains its principal place of
> business and such litigation shall be governed by laws of that
> jurisdiction, without reference to its conflict-of-law provisions.") [8]
> which would require you to sue Apple in California
I consider this to be a much milder clause than the clause in APSL-2.0:
also IANAL, but what it looks like to me:
1. APSL-2.0: Apple can legally drag you (*) to California to be sue you
there under California's law and everything that entails.
2. APSL-2.0: Likewise, you can drag Apple to the California to sue
Apple there.
I don't see any reason to do (2) here.
What I consider problematic here, is (1).
Contrast this to MPL-2.0 (for simplicity, this assumes Apple uses the
MPL, feel free to replace by Mozilla or whatever):
1. If Apple sues you, they have to sue you in _your_ country.
2. If you sue Apple, you have to sue in Apple's country.
This seems rather symmetric to me, and while sometimes I might disagree
with $foreign_country's or $local_country's laws, this seems a rather
reasonable system to me.
(*) unless $your_country's legal system disagrees on this choice of
forum provision.
> We also accept licenses like the GPL that don't have any choice-of-
> forum provisions:
>
> the law of "personal jurisdiction" and venue is complex, but I would
> not be shocked if Apple could sue you in California in this case. My
> impression is that it would be very difficult to require something
> like a "freedom not to litigate in California" (especially so for all
> possible values of "California") without rejecting many
> currently-accepted licenses.
My problem is not a ‘freedom to not litigate in $foo’, but rather ‘no
cherry-picking jurisdictions to whatever is convenient for limiting the
freedom the most’.
Sure, if it comes to a conflict between party X and Y, the legal system
will need to somehow decide on a forum, but no need for this power
asymmetry.
In this case, MPL-2.0's clause seems acceptable to me, but APSL-2.0's
doesn't.
TBC, if two parties of about equal power choose a forum to avoid
potential future problems, ok, but this doesn't seem to be the case for
the APSL-2.0.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-17 17:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-16 6:21 FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0 Philip McGrath
2022-06-16 7:43 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2022-06-16 22:02 ` Philip McGrath
2022-06-17 9:06 ` zimoun
2022-06-17 9:39 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-17 10:00 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2022-06-17 17:06 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-17 20:11 ` Felix Lechner
2022-06-17 21:14 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-17 14:37 ` zimoun
2022-06-17 15:52 ` Philip McGrath
2022-06-17 9:40 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-17 17:11 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-17 17:13 ` Maxime Devos [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5a9202b00b6eabfe3a065d86ca4ccb9044ecbad3.camel@telenet.be \
--to=maximedevos@telenet.be \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=paren@disroot.org \
--cc=philip@philipmcgrath.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).